User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive21

You had previously commented on the possibility of a "comment" committee at the idea lab. At Talk:Landmark Worldwide, I have started a discussion regarding possibly starting a "trial run" of such an idea. Your input in the discussion would of course be welcome. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your description of RS was superb in its generality, specifically....A second misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of specific sources to support specific claims can be found in WP:MEDRS. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid implying conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.) Is it ok with you if I modify it to achieve a tad more generality so that it doesn't apply only to MEDRS? Just wondering what other important guidelines we could use? I think you've presented the most intelligible, comprehensive and succinctly presented response that I've ever read. Atsme☯^Consult 22:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Ten. In this edit (in a thread seven years ago, which was already titled "Medical and legal questions (for the nth time)"; I wonder which time we're up to by now?), you wrote: "Mike Godwin was asked for comments on the [RD] guideline back in August 2007; as far as I know he has offered no objection then or since." By any chance do you remember where that discussion took place? I couldn't find any mention of it in the RD talk page archives; the closest I could find was this edit of Theresa Knott's a few months later, in which she mentions Brad Patrick. (But please don't spend a lot of time looking. The current discussion, if you haven't come across it and if you care, is here.) —Steve Summit (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Poking quickly through the respective talk pages, it looks like Mike Godwin was invited (User talk:MGodwin#Medical advice guideline) to comment on the medical advice guidelines in August 2007. As far as I am aware, he offered no response or objection in that thread (Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice/Archive 1#Serious concerns with this content) or anywhere else. I'm afraid that's all I can come up with.

To be honest, I took WT:RD off my watchlist ages ago, and I'm seldom active on the Desks themselves. The Science desk used to be a remarkable resource, where editors made a serious effort to find useful sources and references and citations. Now it's mostly just StuRat bullshitting off the top of his head. (The problem with StuRat is that he's almost as smart as he thinks he is, and he trusts his own best guesses a little too much. His answers are often correct, but it's impossible for the poor sods reading his 'wisdom' to tell what's based on real knowledge, what's a guess, and what's a wildly inaccurate but clever-sounding stab in the dark. And prolific as he is, he sets a bad example for the ever-decreasing number of new editors who might volunteer there.)

Meanwhile, the talk page is a cesspit of bickering among certain 'regulars', interspersed with libertarian bleating about having a right to spout whatever nonsense dribbles out of people's imagination, actual references be damned. Just not worth it anymore, and it's little wonder that the traffic on the Desks is so much slower than it used to be. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! (Can't argue with much you've said; the decline of the RDs since their golden age has certainly been sizeable and sad.) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah well, its not surprising is it, TOATY? You banned most of the interesting contributoirs didnt you?--178.99.23.76 (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

While we often disagree about things, I appreciate your honesty when you stated:

I will, in the interest of full disclosure, acknowledge that I've run into Insertcleverphrasehere recently at these articles, and been impressed by his thoroughly disingenuous approach

in the recent arbitration case. This comment actually means a lot to me, as I have really made an effort to be as nonpartisan as possible, especially recently as I have begun editing, I'm actually quite honoured that you noticed. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

To avoid any misunderstanding, "disingenuous" is not a compliment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dammit, I guess people don't like me as much as I thought. Another good word is mendacious. You can say that to somebody's face and they won't know they've been insulted until they have had time to look it up. Jehochman ^Talk 14:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

For some reason, I'm reminded of my favorite George W. Bush press conference, where, in the course of explaining why waterboarding people is an essential component of freedom, he reminded us that we were dealing with people who had "been trained, in some instances, to disassemble!" Perceiving the audience's confusion, Bush helpfully explained: "That means not tell the truth." Ah, here it is. MastCell ^Talk 17:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Come on, take it to ArbCom, let's see how far we can go. Dreadstar ☥ 02:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Going around shopping for fights is no way to be. You made a really ill-considered unblock to try to override a clear community-imposed ban, and it reflects poorly on you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Then take it to ArbCom. Dreadstar ☥ 02:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do you genuinely believe that if a poorly-judged act isn't taken immediately to ArbCom, it can't be criticized? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't know where you're getting that. I'm saying if my judgment is so poor as you indicate, then removal of the bit and banning by ArbCom is the real path. Dreadstar ☥ 02:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good god, get a grip. Wait until tomorrow or next week, and re-read this thread. I'm not going to spend any more time on you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think you spent enough time digging up an old diff from an article I accidentally recreated in your attempt to undermine what I was trying to do. Read your own diffs bucko. Dreadstar ☥ 02:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

[1], [2]. Childish and embarrassing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Further vicious attacks noted. Glad to see you eventually reconsidered. Still very concerned if this is your approach to concerns about, and use of, your admin tools. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

My apologies, my comments did get out of hand. I let some personal issues affect my editing, you were just posting what you thought was right. Dreadstar ☥ 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your apology. We all go through times when our heads aren't in a good place for editing Wikipedia. Hopefully going forward you'll be able to recognize those times before you pick up the tools or hit 'Save page'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

[3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

You say in this edit, "Trying to come up with a blanket statement or rule often creates as many problems as it solves—you tend to end up with a subset of editors who are determined to enforce the literal and specific wording of the rule, rather than considering what the rule is actually meant to accomplish." But the Policy policy (not a typo) says, as a matter of policy, that "Policy and guideline pages should ... Be clear [and] ... Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense. If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more." (Emphasis added.) Thus, by policy mature policies should be considered to plainly express the spirit of the rule in the literal and specific wording of the rule. Therefore, there should be no need to inquire further into the spirit or purpose of the rule, the literal and specific wording of the rule should control, and common sense should be applied to properly determine how that wording is to be applied in the particular case.   Yer friendly neighborhood rule-enforcer, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, would you mind clarifying your comment on AN/I? I'm trying to make sure that none of the comments are ambiguous so that we get a clear result. I interpret your post as: support ban from all human biomedical and animal altmed, but not from animal biomedical in general. Is that correct? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

A tag has been placed on Template:Wotnav requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey, this article took me to this unfinished thread, in which you were involved. I would like to know your opinion on that? Mhhossein (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not much to say, really. It looks like someone made a poorly-formed request at RSN after failing to participate in a talk page discussion. I drew no further conclusions at the time, and draw none now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm interested in pursuing this issue. Hwr, thanks for your explanation. Mhhossein (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

She is a woman, just so you know, since you were using male pronouns.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's what I came here to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Noted and amended. She is quite the piece of work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Would you be willing to make the argument you make here at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Energy Catalyzer? I think it's a really good argument -- good enough that perhaps we should consider handling all similar DRN cases that way. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome to make it. I meant what I said when I said that (a) I don't have much free time on my hands right now, and (b) that DRN is shaping up to be a massive time sink. Moreover, I am very wary of encouraging editors to see BlackLight Power as a more general standard; it's still a pretty flawed article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a total blast from the past, but since 2005 the article on Matidia (Trajan's niece and Hadrian's mother-in-law) has identified her as "Salonina". I'm looking for evidence that this is correct; all I can find points to "Salonia" (without the second n). As far as I can tell, the second n stems from your edit. As I say, this is all ancient history (doubly so!), but thanks if you can provide any clarification! Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any page moves in the article history, so I'm guessing that I probably just copied the article title as it existed at the time I did the other wikifying. In other words, the name would appear to stem from the anonymous IP who created the article in March 2005, rather than my minor tidying in April 2005. If the sourcing is better – or at least exists, honestly – for a different spelling of the name, I'm definitely not going to object to a page move and correction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh right, good point. Thanks for your response! Q·L·1968 ☿ 02:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ten, pardon my directness, but you seem to not know what is happening in LENR research. You objected to the fact that I posted a link to a press release in which Darden Enterprise/Cherokee had acquired rights to Rossi's technology. Given the one-sided tone of the existing article, are you suggesting that it is not relevant to record the fact that one of the most successful eco-entrepreneurs in the world has paid 12 million for Rossi's tech is something Wikipedia should hide from its readers. In my talk page comments I suggested that the article in its present state, given what has happened over the last four years since the majority of prominent edits were put in place, borders on defamation. Your abrupt removal of a fact that is critical to the reader's determining the real status of Rossi's work as reflected in numerous online sources tends rather to worsen than improve this situation. Here are some of those links:

http://coldfusion3.com/blog/tom-darden-reveals-why-he-backed-rossi http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2014/10/raleigh-investor-darden-still-bullish-on.html http://revolution-green.com/tom-darden-man-behind-rossi/ http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2015/04/darden-cold-fusion-focused-industrial-heat-showing.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/interview-with-andrea-ros_b_8248624.html

So, since you don't like a formal press release from a Darden company, even if it is merely being used to prove what it dos prove, which is that Darden's due diligence led him to buy Rossi's tech (a highly relevant fact in Rossi's biography, as anyone who has actually followed this matter, as opposed to arbitrarily censoring it is aware), which of these third party sources would you like to document the same claim? Because they each, in one way or another, do so. Thank you for keeping an open mind. --BenJonson (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The quality of the claims made by Rossi and friends has been extensively discussed at Talk:Energy Catalyzer; I'm not going to reinvent the wheel to re-explain why posting Rossi's press releases isn't a good idea. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your reply illustrates a remarkable disconnect from reality and lack of awareness about the current state of the discussion about LENR generally and Rossi more particularly. The press release is NOT from Rossi; it is from Darden Industries. But perhaps you read it so quickly that you confused Darden, an eco-entrepreneur worth a couple of billion, with Rossi. This has NOTHING to do with Rossi's "claims." It is fact that Darden acquired the technology, reportedly for 12$ m. dollars. Here's the release again:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/industrial-heat-has-acquired-andrea-rossis-e-cat-technology-241853361.html. Do you see that Cherokee Industries is the holding company? Rossi had nothing to do with the press release.

Moreover, there are multiple third party reports, including stories in Fortune magazine and the Huffington Post, that confirm the press release. But you were too fast on the "revert" button to make further inquiry.

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2015/04/darden-cold-fusion-focused-industrial-heat-showing.html

Even *Fortune* magazine has covered this: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/09/27/tom-darden-on-lenr-interview-in-fortune-magazine/comment-page-1/

Sorry that I must reinvent the wheel by illustrating with these links and methodological proviso (this is not about Rossi's claims at all). This is an unfortunate illustration of how Wikipedia has difficulty, in the words of Adam Gopnik, dealing with topics where "one side is wrong but doesn't know it." I have a feeling that in the coming weeks and months the prejudice manifest in this article by failure to document critical developments in Rossi's career such as this (and the 2013 Lugano report, which 2 years later STILL isn't mentioned in the article) will happen despite you cavalier and misconceived objections.--BenJonson (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

There's really no need to spam my talk page. This stuff has been discussed to death at Talk:Energy Catalyzer. I'm not interested in wasting more time trying to bring you up to speed when you seem to have no interest in reviewing the existing discussions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well this article was one of a vast series of articles on entirely non-notable Bee Gees recordings. The article says nothing of substance about the song about the song, and the covers are not notable since they seem to have made no impact. Appering on a potboiler cheapo compilation is not a sign of notability either.TheLongTone (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

& btw i think you need to find out what an "edit war" is before you start slinging accusations about.TheLongTone (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's funny; I thought you decided that ""This correspondace is now closed-Ed.". It's a slow edit war, and it's far from the most serious edit war I've ever seen, but you blanked and redirected an article twice. On neither occasion did you engage with other editors on the article talk page; before your second blanking of the article (which was accompanied by a 2.5-word edit summary that just repeated your assertion of non-notability) you ignored a request for an explanation placed by another editor (diff) on the article's talk page. An "edit war" doesn't have to be four reverts in twenty-four hours.

If you'd like to further discuss your conduct and how you can be a better editor, you can restore the discussion on your talk page. Otherwise, there's no further conversation required between us. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I notice that Realskeptic has ceased to edit since their topic ban went into effect. It's only been two days, and there could be some innocent reason (maybe they are busy elsewhere), but I've noticed that real POV pushers tend to lose interest in editing when they are not allowed to touch their favorite topic areas. We don't need such editors.

My point is that such cessation can be listed as a symptom of problematic editors at WP:NOTHERE.

OTOH, if an editor has merely gotten into trouble because they don't understand our policies and culture, but they are still interested in building Wikipedia (they WP:AREHERE), then they will tend to stay around and do other things. In fact, we wish they would.

It especially concerns me when topic banned editors, whose topic ban is limited to a short length of time, cease to edit until the topic ban expires, and then immediately return to that topic area. That practice must be stopped. We wish to groom then into experienced and constructive editors, and they are not learning when they stay completely away from Wikipedia. They are proving that they really have just one mission here.

I propose that instead of a topic ban being limited by time, we could play with the idea of requiring a certain number of non-automated edits (maybe 5,000) in other topic areas before being allowed to return to their favorite topic area(s). By that time they will gain experience, learn about our culture, PAG, and especially behavioral guidelines. Then, when they return to those topic areas, there is a better chance they will edit neutrally and collaboratively.

What do you think of that idea? -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Trying to take your points roughly in order...

I don't think it's necessary to try to add additional gotcha! checkboxes to WP:NOTHERE; in general I'm reluctant to create conditions that might encourage post-block taunting, WP:POKING, or grave-dancing—"Ha! You stopped editing for a while after you were topic banned! You are a POV-pusher!" Even if true, it's not actually particularly useful to point out the obvious. The discussions which precipitate a topic ban already provide a much more detailed and nuanced expression of exactly why the community objects to a particular user continuing to edit in a particular area.

I also don't want to expose recently topic-banned individuals to sniping if they return from an editing break and try to make a fresh start. If they've found the editing or interpersonal disputes that led to their topic bans stressful and they want to take a break, then let them—don't attach a stigma to the fact that they stepped back. If they return and attempt to edit constructively in areas outside their ban, then let them. If they storm off in a huff never to be seen again, then there's no more we need to say about them.

I agree that very short topic bans (less than three to six months) are usually nearly useless, but in my experience they're also pretty rare. (Your mileage may vary.) I see six-month, one-year, and especially indefinite topic bans handed down at AE – at least in the fringe/psuedoscience area – far more often than anything shorter. As aggravating as a pointlessly-short topic ban can be, however, it's a double-edged sword for the editor on the receiving end of one. Sure, he can go back to editing sooner, but the editors an admins in the area tend to remember and recognize him, to more closely scrutinize his conduct, and to be ready to drop the hammer of a much longer topic (or site) ban much more readily.

I would be reluctant to tie unbans to any sort of edit count, and especially to one has high as five thousand. (I'm a moderately active editor and an admin, but I've got more off-Wikipedia hobbies and obligations than I used to; I'm only hitting maybe a hundred edits in a month. Heck, good adminship candidates can still sometimes pass RfA with a couple of thousand edits.) While there aren't any etched-in-stone rules and criteria, a pattern of good behavior in other areas is already a de facto precondition for getting an indefinite topic ban lifted anyway, at least in most of the unban discussions I've seen on AN.

I guess the short summary is that I don't see a whole lot of need for policy revision in this area. Others may feel differently. Heck, I might feel differently given much more data and analysis—but I've got those off-Wikipedia hobbies and obligations calling.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

That all makes plenty of sense. Thanks! -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

I'd appreciate it if you didn't ad hominem me on talk pages, not only is it not the place to discuss it, but you decided to stop by specifically to bring up a year old topic ban and didn't even bother to comment on the discussion itself, do you have some personal vendetta or something?  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  12:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi TenOfAllTrades, regarding your block of Darkfrog24, could you please add some more information into the block summary so it's clear what the block is for (even if just the canned "Arbitration enforcement" option). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

While your point is well taken about PubMed, please note that the actual source, Applied Nursing Research, publishes original, peer-reviewed research findings. Therefore, hoping to not start an editing war, I intend to revert your reversion, but will wait a bit to give you a chance to reply. Helen4780 (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thank you for the comments at the ANI thread re Special:Contributions/Zaostao. I've previously observed their tendentious editing at the article on the white supremacist Jared Taylor, and I was not surprised to see that they would have neo-Nazi dog whistles on their page (although I would not have understood them personally; I am pretty sure I looked at the page before, as it appeared familiar). Good riddance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's not only the targets and fellow Nazis who recognize the encoded hate-speech. I'm a pale-skinned, blue-eyed, fair-haired north-west European with (I think) not an ounce of Jewish or Romani blood in my veins. And I'm not gay. Or a Nazi. And I still totally got the hints. Only an idiot (or someone who doesn't have a bible on hand) would miss it, frankly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Also (I noticed this re-reading the thread after no one credited me for essentially being the first one to put all the pieces together): Which bible translation were you using? It seems like it might have been a post-WWII "cleaning-up" of the overwhelmingly anti-Jewish Gospel According to John. My one (the one used in the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible, which is prescribed in Yale's NT 101 course) says "the Jews", not "the Jewish leaders".

By the way, if it looks like I'm sincerely bitter about not being recognized or I actually think you were insinuating that I was a neo-Nazi, it's not intentional. I'm just kidding. I learned a while ago that my brand of humour doesn't come across well in print, even on websites where the people reading me know me in real life.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

No worries. I'm neither Jewish (nor a neo-Nazi) myself, and yet somehow I managed to pick up these very thinly-coded references. My point was directed more to the well-meaning but frustratingly common and aggravatingly naive editors who get stuck on the But how can it be really offensive if I personally don't see it that way? The Wordsmith's misunderstanding of the "likely to give widespread offense" clause of WP:USER falls into that category. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Meh. Most Wikipedians being white American males means we should take users who say "I'm not offended by it -- it must not be that offensive" in relation to someone other users have already identified as probably being a neo-Nazi with a grain of salt. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Hijiri88: My msg must have come the wrong way. In fact, I should have thanked you as well. My point was that not everybody would have been aware of the references; I was concerned about the editor that's why I looked at their user page before, but as an atheist and not being from Germany, I did not connect the pieces.

I'm grateful to all who participated in the thread with their insightful commentary. As can be seen from my user page, I've had my own encounters with (shall we say it) POV-challenged editors; for example here's this from the "Fan mail" section: "He have no interest in building the military history encyclopedia...". K.e.coffman (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I got that. I wasn't legit offended. I was just feeling somewhat happy with myself for picking up on the fact that, in that context, the bible passage was probably one of the ones about how "the Jews" are trying to kill Jesus and being the first one to check up on it. (I too am a ... well, I'm not an atheist, but I'm not a Christian; I just like history.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Hijiri88: I'm glad you caught it; my "regret" was mostly that I did not see it myself as a lot of disruption could have been prevented.

Here's more of "POV-challenged" editing; I posted to NPOV noticeboard about this neo-Nazi cluster: Troy Southgate (far-right personality), if anybody would like to check it out. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi TenOfAllTrades.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

  Administrator changes

  NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

  Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

  Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

  Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

  Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

  Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded Dissent Channel and nominated it at DYK: see Template:Did you know nominations/Dissent Channel. Great job on the article! Neutrality^talk 02:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Mifter (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! VQuakr (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am a long time user of Wikipedia but only recently found the desire to contribute and in that I am bound to make a few mistakes. Thank you for pointing out my misplacement of an edit into an archive, as strange as it might sound to a long time editor (I assume) I actually wasnt aware that it was an archive and not a current talk area. Your quick curt removal without any hint of prickishness about it is refreshing, so thank you. Also- eh heh- is this the way one is expected to make a personal comment to another user or am I missing some "send message" feature?

No worries. Posting a comment to an archive is almost guaranteed to make sure no one ever reads it. And yes, this sort of communication is exactly what User Talk: pages are for. (You can sign your comments, incidentally, by typing four tildes (these: ~~~~) at the end of your posts. When you hit the save button, Wikipedia will automatically insert a signature with your username and a timestamp.) Welcome aboard! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

My normal editing includes WT:MoS is the comment that disquiets me. The ball is in their court. The question/problem is the ability to adhere. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yep. When the ArbCom voted on the motion a year ago, Opabinia Regalis' noted "...To be very clear on this point, if nothing has changed in February then the answer won't either. The bees have to exit the bonnet." I fear that there is still some buzzing. (On being snookered—I wasn't sure if you were fully briefed on the circumstances of Darkfrog24's ongoing block and topic ban when you made your unblock. I hope that it's now clear to Darkfrog that testing boundaries and returning to endless appeal and relitigation will lead to a very short and unproductive career.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I did solicit input, but did not get the full scope of the problem. We must hope for the best. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, 10 of all, I had not known that. :) Looked like a type-o but then I work in locomotive software and emerging infectious diseases. :) Damotclese (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

No worries. I had to go back to the original cited source to check, because it could just as easily have been a note added by our editors and not theirs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I see you in many discussions of magic exposure... Can you explain what tricks can be exposed on Wikipedia? How do magicians react to this? etc? Thank you! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It looks like you've already had this discussion with Czolgolz; I don't know that there's anything to add. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

ToaT - not sure if you remember your response to me at RS/N regarding my confusion over RS - exact date 00:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC) - I kept it all these years, use it when explaining RS to this day. If I may tax your wisdom once again, can you help clarify what appears to be a questionable dichotomy in RS as it relates to the political left and right. Almost all right leaning (conservative) sources have been ruled "unreliable" while all left leaning (liberal) sources are considered "reliable". Having been a media professional for the best part of my adult life, I see through a lot of what's going on in the MSM today, particularly the paradigm shift from ethical journalism to political rhetoric and bait & click news that our most trusted publications had to resort to in order to survive. Anything you can share will be greatly appreciated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Eeeeehhh...I'm flattered, but I'm concerned by what looks like an appeal to a notion of superficial balance. Note the Daniel Okrent quote on my user page:

"The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true."

More flippantly, but perhaps more directly, there's Stephen Colbert's observation that "reality has a well-known liberal bias."

In the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

I was disappointed to see you quoting my comments the other day on a talk page to argue in favor of a dubious right-wing source. I was too tired to address the matter then (and frankly, am still too tired to delve deeply into it now—U.S. politics are exhausting) but I fear that you mistook my observation that we do not make absolute judgements that a source must be presumed "reliable" for Wikipedia's purposes (especially in the context of sourcing for medical articles), for the subtly but significantly different assertion that a source cannot be presumed generally unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ouch, well you couldn't be any more disappointed than I am right now after reading your words. What I do know without ambiguity is that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Even dubious secondary and third party sources publish AP reports, actual transcripts and video, and often cite primary sources such as the NYTimes. What I see lacking more than the ability to recognize a RS that supports the material is good editorial judgment and knowing what to use, even when it doesn't agree with one's own POV. I won't disturb you any more than I already have. Thank you for taking the time to reply. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and I read Okrent's quote...and then his WP bio. What caught my eye was the section, The Death of Print, wherein he predicted the death of print media in 1999. It made me think of an article I wrote in the Craft Improvement section of Outdoors Unlimited published by the Outdoor Writers Association of America. The piece was titled "A tapeless future", pg 33, dated June 1997, two years earlier: As we approach a tapeless future, are we also approaching a paperless future? It is worth pondering. We already are seeing magazines and newspapers betroth the web, making increased usage of the Internet imminent as more computers are integrated into consumer households. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

... missing here, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am at a loss. Might you be interested in doing the tidying? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

did it myself, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I Want to become a good editor in Wikipedia especially in medicine . Please advise me for better editing skills. (Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)) (Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC))Reply

I haven't had time to edit, but seeing as the topic was closed I could not respond by thanking you. I should have gone to AN and not AN/I, as what I was looking for discussion rather than action. I would also like to ping MathSci and apologize for bringing an unnecessary report. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@CFCF:I appreciate you dropping by, and I'm glad that you've taken some of what I've said on board.

The best way to apologize to Mathsci, though, would be to do so on his talk page, not as an aside on mine. He's the one who you wronged. (And best not to say "unnecessary" report; it was incorrect. Effective apologies don't try to minimize one's mistakes.) You get a second chance to try, too; since you misspelled his username, he won't have even seen your ping. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

TenOfAllTrades is interested in "Lesbian".

In 13 years on this site I've never seen a more ridiculous discussion. What are we missing? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I wish I knew. Is there a history between any of these editors and JzG? Or is it just the usual fetishization of process over outcome, taken to a more-ridiculous-than-usual extreme? (Perhaps with a dash of stick-it-to-any-admin-you-can? There's obviously at least one editor there with a chip on his shoulder.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I find the whole thing bewildering and demoralizing. It doesn't seem to be an "admins. vs. other editors" issue, since many of those who are insisting on overturning the close and relisting the RfA are experienced administrators—including most of the admins who regularly comment on and close DRVs. Usually when I find myself on the opposite side of a lot of Wikipedians I respect, I can at least see the argument for their side of things, but not in this instance. Please continue commenting there, as I don't think I'm going to remain engaged in the discussion without saying something I'll really regret. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, the fact that I even participated in the discussion means that I've said things I regret. It's a tremendous waste of time for all participants, and I share your dismay that experienced editors who ought to know better are banging this drum. It's pretty obvious that this is going to end up in a relisting on RfD just from the sheer amount and volume of noise produced, just so this can end up with the same outcome a week from now, after wasting time for every editor at RfD who has to scroll past the stupid thing. I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline your invitation to remain engaged in the DRV discussion, though—I've grown weary of all the faux-outrage there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Quite understandable. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Argh. I saw it on my watchlist, and I looked at the latest diffs. Stupid me. At this point, I can only assume that this is a piece of performance art. There's no way that real people are making those arguments in earnest. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Wikipedia:Process is important, caveats in the nutshell. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

  WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. (See? I know WP links, too.) You're arguing for a massive waste of time on the DRV; please don't bring more of the same to my talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Hey, that’s not fair. You had a go at me for not changing my formal !vote, but I did quick enough. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

    • And you're still ignoring my clearly-stated preference not to propagate this unfortunate waste of time to my talk page, and presuming to lecture me by WP link on the importance of process, so I'm disinclined to grant you much leeway. That you're able to repeatedly utter the phrase "formal !vote" with a straight face and a sense of importance – especially with respect to such a trivial matter – suggests that you've still missed an important principle. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

... taking a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Purple_trades

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

You have been a significant contributor to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice. On 9 April 2020 a User took action to demote that document from a guideline to an essay. See the diff. The matter is now under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Marked as a guideline page. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Dolphin (t) 13:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply