User talk:Dweller/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Re: WP:CRIQ 2 Thank you 3 Barnstar thanks 4 No apologies 5 Repeated vandal 6 Repeated vandal 7 Chess 8 Question 9 Thank you! 10 Thanks! 11 Archive 12 Merry Christmas! 13 Chess 14 WP:POV 15 I agree, but... 16 Luke Chadwick 17 If you really want to know what a reasonable person would about admin abuse...

[edit] Re: WP:CRIQ

Thanks, Dweller. I was just having difficulty thinking of a question. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Please give me a few more hours. It is getting really tough to set decent questions. Tintin (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What is HoF ? I was not very active in the last few days and probably missed it. Tintin (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggested that we put some of the best questions into a Hall of Fame. We needn't be too fussy about criteria/objectivity. So far, no-one's responded, but we have had some real blinders recently. --Dweller 12:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It would a "POV" list but you can give it a try :-) Tintin (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks. :) JH 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar thanks

Thanks for the cricket barnstar! :-) -dmmaus 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No apologies

I make no apologies for what I said on the humanities reference desk. At times, I may have gone too far elsewhere in wikipedia but not in this instance. When people say stupid things on the reference desk, I have no qualms about pointing this out and am not likely to change any time in the future, especially when it is unlikely the person who asked the question is being sincere. Note that assume good faith doesn't really apply in the reference desk, else we wouldn't be able to suggest that users are asking homework questions (which we do all the time) or otherwise just wasting our time (which we do as well). I rarely frequent the humanities reference desk, mostly science only, so perhaps you don't get as many cranks at humanities but really I don't care. Stupid questions deserve pointed replies. Anyway I've said my piece and don't want to debate this anymore. As such, I'm likely to ignore any further follow ups by you. If you feel my comments so bad that you wish to seek outside assitance, that's up to you. Nil Einne 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at User talk:Edison#Reference desk as well. Although I will probably ignore any comments about the above issue, if you wish to debate the issues I mentioned in my response to Edison, I will read what you have to say Nil Einne 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

How sad. --Dweller 11:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated vandal

Hi CSCWEM. It seems a vandal I've warned with a test4 thinks that because he uses a shared IP that he's immune from blocking ([1]), which worries me somewhat. Cheers, ----Dweller 14:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We have ways of dealing with transparent proxies now. I'm signing off for now, but if you should see any further problems originating from this address, just mention it on WP:AIV and someone should take care of it. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated vandal

Dweller wrote:

Hi Gurch.

It seems a vandal I've warned with a test4 thinks that because he uses a shared IP that he's immune from blocking ([2]), which worries me somewhat. Cheers, --Dweller 14:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, don't know what's giving him that idea. We've been able to block IPs anonymous-only for several months now. This prevents users editing anonymously from the IP, but allows registered users to continue to edit. Blocking shared IPs in this way is now commonplace, usually accompanied by a note explaining to unregistered users that they will need to create an account in order to edit. (Of course, the vandal can create an account and edit too, but a registered account being used only for vandalism will be indefinitely blocked fairly quickly). There doesn't seem to have been any more vandalism since you left that message; if there is, leave a note at WP:AIV – Gurch 15:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading the top of the page seems to suggest that the IP is used by a webcache, and so isn't actually the IP address of the offending user. I guess either someone figures out some way to make all their edits go through that IP, in which case we block it, or if they keep vandalising from a different IP (not a cache) we block that instead? I'm not an expert on when the user's real IP gets listed and when it doesn't, though I do know that if someone is causing a serious problem we can do a rangeblock (though that affects a lot of users, so we try not to). This looks like it was only one or two edits, so nothing to worry about – Gurch 15:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chess

Thank you for help with Chess. It already starts to look like a featured article. Happy editing!--Ioannes Pragensis 12:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A question: In the intro is written "Each player ("White" and "Black") controls sixteen pieces: one king, one queen, two rooks, two knights, two bishops, and eight pawns." This is not exactly true, as the number of pieces changes during the game. It should be something like "each plaer controls pieces of one colour, starting with sixteen ...". Can you please formulate it in good English and change it in the intro?--Ioannes Pragensis 14:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Great spot! I'll take a look at it asap. --Dweller 16:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I absolutely do have concerns.

1. I don't get why my links aren't OK but ones with the same relevance (the extension of knowledge, not service) are accepted.

2. I also don't get why straight information (see: lung transplantation) has been deleted. I was told on my talk page that if it was just informational, then that's OK. But that doesn't seem so since the informational article was deleted along with the program article.

I see a lot of contradiction and inconsistency here. This shouldn't be done when handling articles that deal with patients' and families' lives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:St._Louis_Children's_Hospital (talk • contribs).

Hi. I know, it's confusing and a bit bizarre. OK, first up, your user name doesn't help. We get a lot (and I mean a lot) of spam here at WP and editors' antennae are primed for spotting it. From your user name, people will assume you're pushing a WP:POV to get publicity for your hospital. I've just made a similar edit to yours at Lung transplantation. We'll see how it's treated, given that I make no reference to the hospital at all, and have a neutral user name. One more thing (I know it'll seem trivial). Please sign posts on talk pages (like this one) with four "tildes" (ie ~~~~). It'll automatically date and sign your posts. --Dweller 21:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you so very much. You were a great help in letting me understand how this all works. And I'll try to put my signature on there.. a bit hard to remember at first, but I will get there! Thanks again! St. Louis Children's Hospital 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

[edit] Archive

Done. Hope it's okay. I've left the last week of discussion here in case any of it is still active. Cheers! Budgiekiller 11:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas!

You're welcome. The funny space was "added" by an admin, who deleted the santa, but also the ''.</font>''</div><br></div> part, which causes the box to end there. Now I have to subst all the greetings I gave, otherwise the template will be deleted. 100 down, 40 more to go! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chess

Hi, FARC for Chess is closed, the article survived. Thank you for help once again!--Ioannes Pragensis 23:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POV

Thanks for your kind suggestions and offers.

I indeed have a problem with the point of view issue, especially with how it is supposedly enforced. I take the article on "Bigfoot" as a prime example. Anyone with a scientific bent who has researched the matter is acutely aware that a substantial and growing number of authorities are convinced of the existence of the animal but are troubled that (a) the media, in its infinite wisdom, always operates from a tongue-in-cheek stance, while (b) self-styled "objective" drum-beaters systematically trash every issue that is controversial, typically having no information about the subject and, moreover, not bothering to try to discern experts' statements and viewpoints from amateurs'. Yet, when I tried to insert something objective into that article, it was repeatedly destroyed—as if those who insist on debunking every issue, regardless of its evidential basis, receive preferential treatment, and, a fortiori, seem to "camp" on those articles and wait for anyone to add the merest peep that contradicts their fascist ideologies.

I have bigger problems with scientific articles. My friend, articles on technical topics in Wikipedia typically range from poor to abominable. They are riddled with factual errors. They present little, if any, conceptual basis. They appear to serve as little more than a canvas for Joe Whomever to trot out his own ego, typically by just penning equations that look impressive but are either (a) erroneous, (b) inapplicable, or (c) irrelevant to the discussion into which they are typically so rudely plopped.

(I believe I do have a login, but I don't remember to use it. My addresses are bdwilner@{nsli,erols}.com and I operate from a dynamic IP address that isn't very dynamic insofar as the lease is never dropped while my "always-on" connection is on.)

[edit] I agree, but...

Dweller, the last thing I need is an edit war. The whole thing started because a perfectly innocent caption was purged of uncomfortable content. That is a pov action. I tried to re-instate it and was challenged on references. I provided a reference and was reverted again with an obvious homophobic slur. Why not just drop the whole thing and return to where things were a week ago or so, when this whole thing began? But please do not ask me to stand by and ignore this kind of gratuitous "clensing." Haiduc 15:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Dweller, please don't stray into straw man arguments. How much or how little the caption says is a matter of editorial discretion. What it said originally said something about who and how chess was played in Persia at the time. If it had been a woman, we might have said that it is a wife playing chess with her husband, and that would have been significant, it would have told readers much about the role of chess in Persian society. As it is, it is a picture of men courting a youth, a perfectly innocent and beautiful thing in Sufi society at the time, and it gets suppressed. You obviously did not want to have it read that way, so you first tried to make it that they all were youths, which they are not, and then you left it at all being men, which they also are not. No matter how you twist and turn this one, it is an obvious deletion of a homophilic reference, and is inappropriate and POV. My original edit, and the attempts to reinstate have been very modest. I did not link this to articles about homosexuality, or Sufism, or pederasty. I understand very well that we are not here to make a point about anything. At the same time we are not here to cover anything up. So please be kind enough to return to the neutral ground where all this started, so we can occupy ourselves with more important things. Haiduc 16:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone reading these comments and wanting context for them should see Talk:Chess. --Dweller 10:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Chadwick

he has been sent back to stoke city. hasn't he. if he hasnt i am sorry for this misleading information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Screech123 (talk • contribs).

[edit] If you really want to know what a reasonable person would about admin abuse...

You'd file a user RfC about the alleged abuse first, and get other comments. I certainly wouldn't recommend endorsing a recall petition before you'd given the admin in question a chance to explain their actions, receive comments, and change their ways if the community asked for that. -- SCZenz 11:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I personally don't agree with the recall petition (which is why I've not signed it) but if there is to be one, at least it should be focussed and about the right issues. --Dweller 11:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The petition is a disaster, and I think that's clear to everyone but the signers. Most of the fighting is due to disagreement among editors in how best to respond to it—those who want to summarily chuck it are in conflict with those who want to carefully analyze it. But there's no way for it to "focus on the right issues" without an RfC or an AN/I posting first. -- SCZenz 11:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless it's withdrawn and replaced (or, I suppose amended) by the submitter/s. Incidentally, I think that some of those who want to "summarily chuck it" are posting so aggressively that counter-productively they're destroying any chance of resolving this graciously (see my dialogue on Stu Rat's talk page yesterday). --Dweller 11:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be a good move on their part, as you point out, to withdraw it. I would certainly like to see some of the users in question adopt a less confrontational and a less personal attitude about ref desk disagreements. I think Hipocrite went a too far, but other than that I frankly can't say I'm incensed to see people responding aggressively to what was, in fact, a very aggressive thing to do. The trouble, I feel, is that the users signing the petition simply don't understand how Wikipedia is run, its purpose, or its culture. Their willingness to try to get someone desysopped before raising the issues before the wider community is a symptom, and putting "free speech" above giving useful answers on the reference desk is another symptom. I have, believe it or not, worked my ass off trying to patiently teach them, enduring assumptions of bad faith and a very large amount of incivility along the way; if you have any suggestions on how to do better, I'd sure appreciate it. -- SCZenz 11:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I agree you've been patient of late and thank goodness for that. Some of Hipocrite's contributions have been extremely unhelpful; so have others on the "other side", but I'm shocked when it's an admin. Looks like my own efforts are failing too, which is sad, because no-one will "win" this recall, even if it is tightened up as I've suggested. I'm just trying to edge the parties toward compromise and mediation, but, as I say, WP will be the loser whatever Lar's conclusions. --Dweller 12:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite isn't an admin. If he were, there'd be a note of his promotion in the log (compare my log, for example). Hipocrite is a user who has a good understanding of the ideal way to do many things on Wikipedia, but he is certainly hot-headed and impatient with regard to people who don't, and that is something he should work on. It's important to see the value in the edits of users who are behaving poorly, and to taylor one's response based on that value. But note that, at some point, further patience becomes useless and the costs of dealing with misbehavior exceed the benefits; if it comes to that, you will see me change my approach again.

So when you propose mediation, what do you mean exactly? I've seen some people try to mediate the ref desk issues, and end up either leaving in frustration or "joining" a "side." I'm afraid I don't see quite how anyone would mediate; I think what we need is a willingness to discuss either general guidelines or specific issues reasonably, based on the policies of Wikipedia and the goals of the reference desk. -- SCZenz 12:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. And I think it could do with someone who remains aloof from the detail of what to ensure the how of the debate remains reasonable, civil and constructive. That's all. --Dweller 12:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Such a person could be useful, if they were impartial and listened to by everyone; I'm just not sure that's possible. -- SCZenz 12:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)