User talk:Ling.Nut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Primary account:

Ling.Nut (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

Secondary account

(for NPP, includes Statement of NPP Philosophy):

Ling.nut (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)
Ling.Nut (talk page) archives (latest) →   


Contents

[edit] Safe Wiki

See Safe behaviours

[edit] Downfall FAR

It's not an issue of prettiness versus verifiability. I would have no objection to him adding a reasonable number of fact tags (which he did earlier, and all of which had been replaced by citations with no futher comments). However, adding them to every uncited sentence in the article (and to some which were cited) was clearly not done as a way of encouraging verifability - there is no citation standard anywhere that requires every sentence to be cited. It was a case of trolling, pure and simple. That's why I threatened to block him. Raul654 18:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The above is BS and he abuses his power, "pure and simple". I'm rather sick of his slander to be honest - I've noticed his poor behaviour numerous times on talk pages, and I'm glad I had the courage to stand up for every other normal Wikipedian who's had to put up with him trying to bully them around with his admin rights. LuciferMorgan 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm pulling an all-nighter and can not — not — not get involved in a discussion. I'll offer a couple thoughts and disappear:
  1. WP:TROLL says "Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia." Knowing how crazy you are about ref tags (crazier than I am, and I'm as crazy as a bedbug), I am inclined to think that you wanted ref tags there, just as you said. By extension, I don't believe you were trying to be deliberately disruptive.
  2. I looked at the diffs of the exchange, and frankly I think both of you had more than one instance of breaking more than one point listed on Safe behaviours
  3. If I counted the violations, though, in my opinion, he has more than you. Plus his feel more serious to me, in my subjective opinion. [Details withheld in the name of relative peace and sanity.]
  4. BUT Homestarmy said that he believes admins have a track record of considering it "disruptive" when people place a relatively large number of {{fact}} tags on a given page. Like it or not, whether that's fair or just or not, that seems to suggest that he can fairly readily rally support for his position.
  5. BOTH of you violated guidelines (again, in my opinion), but his position has a track record of coming out the winner. Moreover, he is a very trusted member of the community (not saying that you aren't). Even though his offenses seem relatively worse than yours, they still seem kinda relatively minor or at worst moderate, in the grand scheme of things.
  6. SO if your argument relies on your incident alone, I think you may be likely to lose the argument, in my subjective opinion. I'm sorry to say that.
That's all I can say. Sorry. I hope it didn't seem inappropriate to you. :-(
I will try to catch up with things in a few days, after exams.
--Ling.Nut 02:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
PS IMO, it would be good to find peace and move on, if that is possible. But it's your battle, not mine, and thus your call, not mine. --Ling.Nut 02:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
There's more than my incident that can be referred to if we went through the archives. Having said that, I entirely agree with your comments - after all, the FA director looking bad wouldn't make Wikipedia look good in the eyes of the media now would it? Also, he's a key member of the arbitration committee which deals with resolving issues. The bottom line is that Wikipedia's public image would be slightly tarnished if he was treated the same as everyone else, which frankly is rather sad.
As for him being a trusted member of the community, I'm inclined to disagree and say this is only due to his position as FA director - without that it'd be a different matter. He's a belligerent buffoon, and I'm sticking to that opinion.
As for moving on, it doesn't help when my name's being slandered and he's saying I'm trolling on your page - he's a liar and not a good one at that. I refuse to let him undermine the FAR process in the pathetic, downright ludicrous manner he's attempted to - I don't care who he is, and I'm not the first person to say his tenure as FA director is a shambles. LuciferMorgan 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(undent) I asked Raul654 to comment on my page, see this. Maybe it was kinda obtuse of me. It wouldn't be the first time I was obtuse. ;-) But I actually and truly wanted to know the reasoning behind his threat to block you. But his words are his own. --Ling.Nut 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian people

Ling, why did you clasified Asian (people) as belonging to Wikiproject Ethnic groups? Asians are not an ethnic group but many. It talks of Asians as if they were a unity and it does so from and excluyent POV that excludes West Asians and Siberians, but has no problems mixing Gujaratis with Koreans.

In my opinion, you are legitimizing patent nonsense. And the rating is wrong: how can it be classified as "top", when it is not a generalistic article about concepts such as ethnicity, anthorpology and so? I don't want to step on your toes but it really looks ultra-POV in its very conception. --Sugaar 21:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't worry about my toes. I have recently decided that having hurt feelings is too much hard work for a lazy person like me. :-)
  • My memory is vague, but I don't believe I added it to the Wikiproject. I merely attempted to review it; it was already a member of the project. In fact, I reviewed it twice, I believe. I raised concerns at the time about its... content.. if I recall correctly.
  • There are many discussions on the WikiProject's talk page about reifying non-homogeneous groups. Some may be archived.
  • I agree that there are... questions... regarding the content of pages such as Asian (people). I'm just not as actively concerned about it as you seem to be... I suppose that I have occasional flashes of Eventualism. It is possible that a page such as that may have more than a little redeemable content, and could be turned into a genuinely high-quality article.
  • You should consider whether editing the thing to improve its quality is an option. It would be hard work, I believe. Otherwise, you can start a thread on the project's talk page about removing it from the project. I certainly won't argue either direction, since in fact I believe you raise some valid points. However, I think many people are busy; such a thread may not gather any responses. Or if you wanna be really bold, you could just remove it w/out discussion. But that seems a little unilateral to me...
  • --Ling.Nut 22:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought you were on vacation so I opened a thread in the WP's talk page. The case is that two "old friends" (i.e. people with a very high ideological bias I met before in another article) have come by the project asking for "permission" to start an article called European people (when you see that blue, the real trouble will have started) and alleging that article and another one (African people) as reasoning to do it. My feeling is that they have already been displaced from White people and are looking for an alternative space to use as propaganda platform for their POVs. I really became very surprised to discover that such articles actually exist (though they are very young) and I suspect they merit an AFD or at least a merge with their respective continental articles.
In my opinion the very concept of Asian people is just too POV to merit an article but in any case it does not deserve to be godfathered by WikiProject Ethnic groups, as they are not one.
But we better discuss this in the project, so we can have other opinions. --Sugaar 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Graniteville train disaster

The person guilty of this violation is an admin... I think he should be reported. How does one do this? LuciferMorgan 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Check this one: Bourbonnais train accident. Deja vu? LuciferMorgan 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Algoma Central Railway - is this another, or not? I can't tell LuciferMorgan 22:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that all the GA articles under Railroad transport need further investigation - more edit histories throw up some info. LuciferMorgan 22:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this guy's behaviour was dodgy from Day 1. LuciferMorgan 00:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, in most cases it's too much trouble to worry about who did what to whom. Just find old articles that wouldn't pass today, leave a message on their talk page, wait one day, and then delist them. End of story. If someone contests the delisting, then check to see who nominated it, who passed it, who contributed to it (and how much) before passing, etc. --Ling.Nut 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
So your telling me that the whole train section just about (30 odd articles), of which he's falsely promoted, should be ignored? Frankly, he's an admin and should be subject to scrutiny like the rest of us. LuciferMorgan 01:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(undent). Not ignored — examined and potentially delisted. As for Slambo — once again, it certainly wasn't against the rules before 24 December 2005 and probably not before 1 March 2006. Besides, I'm not thinking people are gonna get too offended/excited about self-promotion of GAs. In the grand scheme of things, it's mostly harmless, if kinda yukky. At least, that's what most people will say, I believe. --Ling.Nut 01:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lebanon

Hello Ling.Nut! It's been a while. Could you please comment on our progress with Lebanon? I'm thinking of putting the article through peer review. What do you think? LestatdeLioncourt talk 09:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Algoma Central Railway

My mistake. Sorry. LuciferMorgan 20:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be my week on Wikipedia - I've gotten into three separate arguments. One at GAR with that Rlverse bloke (an asshole to be frank) and two others at FAR. I might lie low for a while further. LuciferMorgan 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah the argument does seem tedious, and I agree they want free GAs. I don't think they like it when the status is removed, and then take it out on nominators and reviewers. LuciferMorgan 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Using one source can be seen as NPOV. It's an argument that's been used in the past. LuciferMorgan 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(undent) yeah.. but.. yawn... I'm not interesting in arguing. It was very very stupid of my to even try to respond (or to help.. people say they want feedback.. then scream when they.. get... it... yawn....--Ling.Nut 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Anyway I retracted the RFC, but a ton of those Train related articles need GARing rather soon. LuciferMorgan 00:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting bored by the GAR discussion too. LuciferMorgan 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin coaching, etc.

Are you ready to get started?

The waiting time over at Admin coaching is long (some people have been waiting in line since July). I'm an admin coach with the project, and for my students I set up a group discussion page so that we could all learn from each other. The scope of this concept has expanded into the Virtual classroom, which is an open forum for the teaching and learning of advanced Wikipedia skills.

Anyone and everyone is welcome to participate, as a student, as a coach, or both. Every week or two a new major topic of discussion or classroom assignment is introduced, usually with a guest writer who presents his or her expertise on the current subject and who remains on hand to answer questions. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the discussions, such as sharing your expertise, asking and answering questions, etc.

The current topic of discussion is vandalism, and our guest writer is Budgiekiller.

All discussions are open-ended, so all previous discussion topics and classroom assignments are still there for viewing and further participation. There are also sections for posting miscellaneous topics and questions, requesting coaching assistance, etc.

In addition to inviting those who would like to learn, I routinely invite experts from all over Wikipedia to come and contribute for the benefit of all. The VC is rapidly turning into a clearing house of the best resources, methods, and techniques known for working on Wikipedia.

You are cordially invited to participate.

Here's an announcement box which you can place on your userpage or at the top of your talk page for keeping up to date with classroom assignments.

Virtual classroom assignments
3. Budgiekiller, on vandalism
2. Grutness's guide to stubbing
1. Compare your user interfaces with what others use
0. Admin coaching - general and specific advice on preparing for adminship
-  Miscellaneous questions and comments - anything goes
 .
 .
 .
 .

I hope to see you there. Sincerely,  The Transhumanist    07:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So, speaking of the GA backlog...

What expertise level do they want for people to review articles for GA status? Is there any sort of formal training? I have put up a couple nominees, and notice you do have a backlog. I'd like to help out, but not sure if I'm qualified to just dive in and label stuff...so is there a procedure or training offered? (answer on my talk page if you could??) Thanks Montanabw 19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since Ling asked me to help basically, I thought i'd just say that there's no training at all, the instructions are meant to be relatively straightforward. (Though they are starting to get annoyingly complex with hold rules this and delisting times that :/) My advice would be to read the sorts of reviews other users give, the point is just to demonstrate whether an article does or does not comply with the GA criteria. (And maybe give advice on anything else you notice.)Homestarmy 19:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a few articles under the "Physics" subsection in "Physics and Astronomy" heavily lacking cites and having the Agne warning from September. Delist them if you want. LuciferMorgan 20:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No fears, you haven't scared me away! I'm just busy with a couple other things. I shall poke my head in pretty soon.Montanabw 20:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] small option for template

The option of making templates small seems to be gaining popularity. I put the option in the template {{Ethnic groups}}. If the small=yes option is not set, nothing changes. If it is set, then you get what you can see on Talk:Popora people.

If we adopt this option, we may need to reduce the verbiage on the template.

let me know what you think. --Ling.Nut 04:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Largely a good idea, but looks (on Firefox, at least) like the toggle at the lower right gets messed up, because it overwrites text. - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good now! - Jmabel | Talk 16:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick query regarding The Orb

  • Hiyas, you previously reviewed and passed The Orb for GA status. You noted that there was much content that was not entirely necessary. If you get a chance, could you perhaps point out a couple such sentences/subjects in the article that you feel could/should be cut? Just a few examples so that I can figure it out from there. Thanks a bunch! Wickethewok 17:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small option of template

No objection to small option; I don't consider that a major change. Thanks for the heads-up. —Viriditas | Talk 02:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the brevity. Clear as in crystal clear. Many templates make use of the transparent, Crystal icons. I would like to see a similar icon on the WP Hawaii tag. —Viriditas | Talk 00:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello there. Yeah, perhaps passing me the occasional question about South African languages might be a good idea. Please note, that I'm not a linguist and I seem to be getting notorious for not being a very big fan of citations and verifiability (I've seen more than my fair share of psychoceramics theories which totally contradict my everyday experiences and common knowledge) and I tend to be rather pessimistic about them.

I'm always available if you ever need the first-hand perspective of someone with a good-ish grasp of linguistics (or even matters relating to society and African Traditional Religion).

Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 09:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for those wonderful papers. I've downloaded two of three files you sent me, but I'm having trouble logging in to my mailbox (that's why I'm replying here). The ones I have taken a look at seem to be very useful. Many thanks for your helpful comments as well. Happy editing~ — LestatdeLioncourt 17:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why not? I'm sure George will find them just as useful. I've fixed the problem with my email though (admission decisions are emailed tonight, so I had to that), so no worries. —LestatdeLioncourt 18:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Thanks

Thanks for the thanks on my GA help! I really appreciate that you took the time to thank me. Green451 02:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic groups project

Answered you on my talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 00:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/n/User_talk%7ELing.Nut_6df9.html"