User talk:SatyrTN/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 12


Contents

Thanks

I noticed that as well, so I began focusing on putting all info on the Defense Command (series) and The Equations Novels into one massive article rather than many little ones, the goal being to make the articles more relevant and informative. Quality is better than quantity, after all. Thank you for the tips. - Thecrew2008

Help me daddy

The E.O. Green School shooting article and talk page seem to be a little heated, but the question I have is can an underage suspect's name be added in a WP article? Someone is adding it back to the article, but an admin said it's against WP policy. Do you know what the policy is and where it's located so I can show the person? Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just passing through (and as such am not the intended target of your question), but I'm gonna go ahead and opine.
Wire services and local media have the name of the alleged shooter. So does anyone with access to Google. Prosecutors are charging the suspect as an adult. Regardless of general policy on alleged offenders who are minors, I submit that when the Associated Press reports the name of a minor charged with a crime, Wikipedia should run the name.
A wire service will typically not do this unless it's an infamous crime with perceived national scope. The interests of informing the public readership & being WP:BOLD outweigh any procedural considerations under these circumstances. If you find a hard policy on Wikipedia that says otherwise, do point me to it.
OTOH, maybe you wanted User:SatyrTN's opinion. Who knows! :)
—Adrian Lamo ·· 2008-03-01 21:02Z
Thanks for your input. I thought it shouldn't be included at first, but the more I think about it (and what you mentioned), it seems that if the national media can report it...then so can we. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I still think it could be included in WikiNews, but Wikipedia is not under a deadline, so "reporting" the names of suspects is not something we should be engaged in. But since I'm involved in a few other things, I'm not commenting any further on that article. =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you mind me calling you daddy? (grins) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Depends - do I get to spank you when you're a bad boi? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course. ;-) OMG, I have turned into a Wikislut. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
"Turned into"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
(drumroll) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I just thought you were already there, not "turning into"... =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez image issue

Thanks for your reasonable comments on that talk page! In the continuing image saga, Benjiboi and I have appealed to David Shankbone to see if he'd consider trying to get a picture of Sanchez that would be free of any potential POV, would have no question as to its license, be current, etc. Aleta (Sing) 16:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that - that would be an ideal situation :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment: The three things in Matt's life that are "notable" by Wikipedia's standards are a) his adult video award(s), b) his national exposure from the Columbia incident, and c) his Kirkpatrick award and the surrounding controversy.

I'm also very well known for my reporting from two war zones. The fact that you don't see that shows the LGBT bias. I believe there should a limit to the amount of LGBT editors who can contribute.


I also love the dress blues picture. It's so typical of Marines.  :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.13.51.235 (talk)

My work in Iraq and Afghanistan is inaccurately cited.

You have been blocked. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You probably should post that at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine#Log of blocks and bans. Aleta (Sing) 17:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm so irritated with this image thing right now. The denial of dating the image seems ridiculous to me. So not everyone likes that image, it's still better to give more information about it, but no.... we can't even have consensus to do that! Bah humbug! Aleta (Sing) 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the block log - I didn't know about that. What I am very amused by is Matt's comments above to me. There are those on the page that would say I'm the most pro-Matt editor on the article, though I don't see it that way. And yet I have an LGBT bias and get harassing comments from him. It looks like none of us can win! Perhaps we should just delete the entire article, leave a stub about his GayVN award, and protect the page forever. Think we can get consensus about that? =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No,, of course not! But it made me laugh, so thanks for that. I know what you mean. Apparently I'm another radical without a life, myself. God, what a mess that whole thing is. Aleta (Sing) 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

ARB logs

All arb cases that have enforceable remedies (as opposed to the ones that merely have recommendations) have an enforcement section, it's just a section in the final decisions part of the case page. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:VP/T and recent changes talk

Howdy, I replied to your post. The gist is that it will take a few hours to do it, then the developers have to approve. I'll drop you a note when it is final. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My userpage

Per WP:USER#OWN, I would prefer that you alert me to material you think should be removed from my page, but do not edit it yourself. If it is material that is against policy (like the WP:ATTACK you removed) or is detrimental to the project, I'm likely to remove it. Otherwise it's not hurting the project and it is my userpage, so please respect my wishes. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer you did not host material -- including personal attacks -- from banned users on your Talk page. Permitting such comments does hurt the project. I'll be deleting any attacks against me (or any users) I see there in the future, in accordance with about 25 Wikipedia policies. If you don't want me removing attacks from your page, make it clear to Sanchez that he's not to post any. --Eleemosynary (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine - I've asked nicely. In accordance with policy "user's wishes should be respected", but you continue to be obstinate in your dealings with me, so I'm now asking to stop writing anything on my userpage at all. Future communication from you on my talk page will be deleted and/or reverted without reading it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Whilst it is perfectly reasonable to make requests about communications, do you really think it is OK for an admin to delete / revert all communications talk page comments without reading from an editor who edits in an areas where the admin edits and uses tools? Isn't the first step in DR talking to the admin? Maybe you might consider refactoring your statement? (For the record, I have no idea specifically what Eleemosynary deleted, nor do I care - I just thought this statement was a bit over the top - and potentially unwise when ArbCom is considering taking a case to comment on admin communication. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Jay*, hon, I asked nicely. And of course I'm being overly dramatic - I'll probably end up reading comments if they're left on my talk page. While I'm deleting them. However, I'm perfectly in the right here - read WP:USER. I've asked that user to leave me alone. Sie refuses to. I am not willing to waste my time on someone that doesn't respect me or my wishes. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Satyr, I agree that you asked nicely. I also agree that you can reasonable ask that people do not edit your user page without consultation. I would like to offer some friendly advice: In my opinion, one of the major origins of problems on WP is poor judgement on the part of admins. For the record, I don't mean circumstances where reasonable people can disagree or where admin actions are unpopular but necessary on policy grounds. Also for the record, I am not suggesting that your actions are causing significant problems at the moment. However, in the recent past, you have: used admin tools on an article which you frequently edit; engaged in a revert war; violated 3RR (although you chose not to acknowledge this fact, nor to participate in a discussion about it); and, you are now making an absolute declaration regarding talk page communication with an editor you know works in areas you do and refusing to communicate even about use of admin tools. In my view, the best admins here are the ones who engage with constructive criticism, admit to being faliable, and readily admit when they make a mistake. They have the respect of editors because they earn it; they never take the "I'm an admin so I'm right / I know better" type tone and approach, and their actions demonstrate that they really believe they are just another editor (with a mop). Please, reflect on your recent actions and choose a role model worthy of the position. Work towards being one of the best admins - which I believe you can be - and don't pick up some of the behaviours of the admins for whom the mop is a very big deal. I hope that you will accept these comments in the spirit in which they are offered. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

Jay*, I can tell you have the best intentions by the way you write, and I hope I *can* take your comments in the spirit they are offered.

I freely admit a 3RR violation. No one has asked me outright, and it was not brought to my attention until after the other person's block had expired, so blocking me would have been punitive, serving no good end. But I did violate 3RR.

I believe that 3RR violation is the same as the "revert war" you mention, but if you're thinking of a different situation, please let me know.

I'm also curious which article do you feel I used admin tools on that I frequently edit? And where this might have been a violation of policy?

As to my talk page, I am indeed making an absolute declaration about Eleemosynary editing my talk page. We interact about articles on the relevant talk pages, and that doesn't need to change. But I do not want to have any personal interactions with that editor on my talk page. I don't need the abuse and disrespect in my own space.

Please note - this isn't about my being an admin or not. This is about personal space and respect for one another. I've been very civil with that editor and have received responses that border on attacks. If they want to be civil back, they can prove it on article talk pages - not in my personal space.

Please also note I have absolutely no way of enforcing this request. Unless I fully protect my own talk page, anyone is still able to leave messages here. So this discussion we're having is pretty much moot.

I also want to point out that you're basing a lot of assumptions on the way one article is being handled. Please take a look at the other 2,000,000 articles, most of which are edited and improved, even argued over, without many problems. There are difficult interactions all over the project that get settled in very civil manners.

The Sanchez article has been through an amazing amount of rancor, ire, and anger, far disproportionate to it's 1,300 words. The editors there have been at each others' throats for months over simple words. You've only seen the last month of it, when it's actually been fairly calm and orderly. But the lingering anger and distrust is tough even for the most level-headed editors. On that article especially, you're likely to see the "I'm an admin and I know better" attitude. I don't necessarily know why that is, but I would argue that it's really unfair to judge Wikipedia, admins, or single editors by their interactions on that particular article.

Thank you for letting me think about this some and respond to your comments. I look forward to your responses to my questions. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Satyr, you can indeed take my comments as meant to be constructive. There are, from my perspective, a lot of problems around WP, and the absolute last thing I want to do is to add to them. This place has so much potential, and yet this is not being realised (at least, not to the extent that is possible). I will try to take your points in sequence, but please forgive me if I wander a little - I am trying for clear and unambiguous communication, which is difficult in written form where contextual clues are lost, and where the potential for misinterpretation of connotation (and even intent) around personal issues is particularly high.
    • 3RR / revert war: In this case, I am referring to the Matt Sanchez writer issue, but separated it into two parts as I see it as a multi-step issue. You used the admin tools to protect the article to stop warring. Less than a day later, you were reverting in a war-like manner - not an application of good judgement, in my view. Contuining that war to the point where you violated 3RR was even worse judgement, hence my drawing the distinction. Until the fourth revert, you had not (as I understand it) violated any policy, but that doesn't mean that every action to that point was appropriate. For example, you could have left the page on E's preferred version and started the talk page thread yourself. I am not sure what would have happened next had E not been blocked - a fifth revert by each of you, perhaps? Are you sure that you wouldn't have done a fifth revert? (You don't need to answer me on this question - I ask it in the hope that you will honestly ask yourself the question, and think about: given how you were feeling at the time (which only you can know), how would you have responded if E had reverted you with an edit summary like shouldn't revert while talk page discussion ongoing - get consensus first?)
    • 3RR / block: I notified you of my AN/I post. In doing so, I hoped you would join in, and would make a statement similar to the one above. I don't recall which admin it was, but I remember a recent case in a similar situation where the admin blocked themself (for 1 second, I think), in order to note the violation in the block log. That was an action that deserved respect, because it was an action that communicated a belief that everyone is equal. I didn't report your violation at 3RR because I wasn't sure that a block was warranted, but I was disappointed that you didn't chose to acknowledge it. Perhaps I should have acted differently - asked you to comment directly, for example - but I wanted to give you the opportunity for an unrequested mea culpa. That having been said, I was far more disappointed in the actions of the admins on AN/I. As I recall, not one of them explicitly stated that you had violated 3RR - there was comment that different sanctions may be appropriate depending on historical behaviour (which is fair enough), but those comments were "if" statements (if there was a violation ...). Further, no admin chose to post here to say to you that you had crossed the line into a policy violation. No friendly reminder that the rules appply to all. No warning of any sort. In short, no action. It looked to me like admins protecting their own, a persistent WP problem - just look at the length of time that JzG/Guy's block lasted (for blatant incivility) for a single example.
    • Admin tools and editing: Matt Sanchez is the article of which I was thinking. Specifically the protection preceding the war, and since then editing through protection. I am not suggesting that either was a violation of policy, but they are in dangerous territory. If I were an admin, I would not use tools in areas I edit for anything less than an emergency - it is too easy wander out of the grey area, or to create resentment. Every admin has the right and the responsibility to decide where they place the line on their own behaviour (subject to policy). My line would be on the conservative side - "given that I edit here, is this such an emergency that taking the time to ask an uninvolved admin to act is unjustified in this case?". You can place yours wherever you choose, but I'd comment that the more it favours action over inaction, the more you risk being controversial. Even acting with the best intentions, it is nearly inevitable that someone will be annoyed in some cases, and will remember that action - even if they don't day anything at the time, it can chip away at the store of goodwill they will extend.
    • Talk page and the high road: I realise that you can't enforce a talk page ban, but perhaps you might consider how that ban will look to others. You could have included a caveat that you will allow comments from E that are civil and go to use of admin tools to remain. Instead you chose the absolutist route. The former signals to the community that you believe that, as an admin, you have a responsibility to be accountable for your admin actions, and will engage on such issues irrespective of personal beliefs. The latter can be seen as asserting a right to be unaccountable when actions concern a particular editor. I am not suggesting this is what you intend, but rather how it can be seen by someone else. Caesar's wife is an unattainable standard, but that doesn't make it an unworthy goal. My other suggestion here is that taking the high road, even with those who abuse you, is a good goal for a role model - even if it is hard to live up to at times. I understand a desire for personal space, and that letting stress into that space feels like a violation. My question for you to consider is: does that feeling justify a reduction in your accountability to the community (either actual or merely perceived)?
    • Basis of my assumptions: FYI, I agree that the MS article is certainly controversial at a level far outweighed by its content (or subject, for that matter). I would like to note, however, that your assumption about my assumptions is in error. I am not basing views solely (or even predominantly) on that article. Whilst I haven't been editing long, I have lurked for a while. I've followed a lot of AN and AN/I discussions on a range of topics. I watched the MH, waterboarding, Bluemarine, and Mantanmoreland ArbCom cases. As my user page shows, I am well educated and so have a breadth of knowledge and interests which far exceeds the pages I have actually edited. I have participated in parts of the Expert Withdrawal discussion on Raymond Arritt's page, the AE discussions of ScienceApologist, and the EveryKing ArbCom appeal. I have seen productive collaborations in many areas, and believe that the DR procedures work well when all editors are acting in good faith. Unfortunately, they fail miserably in other places. Pages like homeopathy are disaster areas, and much of it due to spectacularly bad admin judgement. The civil POV-pusher can totally prevent any progress being made on an article. I think, with MS less involved, his article is slowly making progress - it's far from the worst case I watch. In short, I rarely offer a view without having read sufficient background material, although I will always be willing to entertain suggestions that there are some important thing(s) that I have missed.
    • Admin defensiveness: In my view, some of the "I'm right"-type responses arise from an instinct to protect oneself when being questioned / criticised / attacked (especially the latter). Some also comes from arrogance. Sometimes it is borne of frustration. For example, I read your suggestion to me above about reading WP:USER (which I re-read, incidentally) as a mix of helpful suggestion and defensive protection. I am not suggesting that you have gone into the arrogant "I'm right" approach, but some admins do. And, I find it hard to imagine a circumstance in which the "I'm right" approach is truly justified. In my work, it is primarily the insecure who respond to questions defensively - those secure in their knowledge and abilities don't feel the need because they have no problem with the fact that they make mistakes - after all, everyone makes mistakes. It is inevitable that you will be challenged at times on actions that are necessary. There will also be times when reasonable people can disagree - for example, we disagree about the evidence for MS having worked as an escort, a question separate from whether reporting this work on WP is policy-compliant. Sometimes people will hurl abuse, or tendentiously repeat arguments over and over again. Yet, I would personally want to avoid taking an "I'm right" approach to any of these circumstances, because I don't see it as helpful. Policy enforcement actions can be met with a polite description of the policy, and if further challenged, by suggesting a review be sought (or seeking one yourself). Tendentious arguments may ultimately call for admin action from someone else - but up to the point where it is appropriate to disengage, the same sort of interaction is possible. Now, you might comment (justifiably) that I have not been here that long, or wielded the mop - both of which are true - and consequently haven't experienced the frustrations that you likely have. I guess I would say that I have seen enough to have formed a view as to what doesn't work, and to have serious doubts about engaging in the project in my areas of work because of the stress and frustration that will result.
Hopefully this makes some sort of sense, and apologies that it has rambled a little. I'd be happy to discuss further if you wish. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You do realize that the block of the article and the 3RR violation that happened later were over entirely different issues, right? So while I fully admit my 3RR violation, I don't feel it has anything to do with the protection the day before.
Yes, I do - but it is irrelevant to the two point I was trying to make: (1) they demonstrate temporally proximate editing and tool use on a single page; and (2) that temporal proximity can raise questions as to the objectivity of admin actions - if an admin is sufficient engaged with the topic of an article to be willing to revert war over an issue on that article, isn't it reasonable for someone to wonder about whether any tool use on that article was done objectively and dispassionately? Jay*Jay (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm hearing, from everything you've said, that you're frustrated with some admins and with some of their actions. And anyone even remotely glancing at the Sanchez article is going to see that there are, and have been, issues all the way around.
I'm having a hard time, though, understanding why you picked my request to Eleemosynary to be the thing to focus on. There's no substance to it, for one thing. It's a "ban" in name only, and other than you, I, and Eleemosynary, there's probably no one else that's even aware of it. As I mentioned, I have no way to actually block that editor from leaving any message they choose on my talk page. Yes, I'm being stubborn and "banning" their edits because I feel violated in my own space - I feel like that editor is removing things from *my* space, even after I've *asked* them not to do it. It's not a matter of admin tools, it's not a matter of "the community", it's simply a matter of "Mom! He's touching me!!!", if you get my drift.
I didn't single out the ban for a focus - I noticed it and asked a simple question. From there, a conversation has developed between us. Some sort of conversation was likely following your non-participation at AN/I. I didn't expect this to spark it, but so be it. Incidentally, I have been talking not so much about the ban itself, or its effect on E, as I have been talking of the potential for damage to your reputation from people seeing it, forming an opinion, and not saying anything. I understand your need for personal space - and please tell me if I'm violating it, because I'd hate to be doing that - but I don't think it is the only issue here. Jay*Jay (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
So yes, there are admins that bend the rules, there are bad things that happen. I try, very hard, not to do things in the wrong way. And sometimes I succeed. I'm impressed at the time and space you've lurked on :) I would say, though, that the fact you're even *aware* of that many ArbCom cases means you've been following the "darker side" of wikipedia. By that I mean that most disputes and most of what goes on for the project doesn't even get close to ArbCom, so you may have a view of editors and admins that is a bit skewed in that direction.
I agree that I have spent much time watching the dark side, and acknowledge the potential for a skewed perspective. All I can say is that there is a very good reason for it that I would prefer not to discuss. As for admin work, I am still engaging here as I hope I am offering some constructive comments that will help you become an even better admin - if I'm not being helpful, please tell me and I'll stop. Jay*Jay (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
On other notes, in re-reading your message a third time, you may be right about my editing the fully-protected Sanchez article. I will have to give that some thought.
And one final note - part of the reason for admins and mops is to enforce policies. For instance, wiping out CopyVios when they happen. I think that breeds a little of the "Because I'm right" attitude you talked about. It's a difficult situation for the encyclopedia, though. We have some legal obligations, but we want to be anarchistic. Personally, I believe that's where all of the problem areas come in to play. For example, whether you believe Sanchez worked as an escort or not, the policy states that we have to be above reproach in how we report that. So "anyone should be able to edit the Sanchez page" butts up directly against "prove your allegations to satisfy the law". And admins are stuck there in the middle.
I agree, which is exactly the reason for my saying that some of the "I'm right"-type responses arise from an instinct to protect oneself when being questioned / criticised / attacked (especially the latter) ... I find it hard to imagine a circumstance in which the "I'm right" approach is truly justified. In my work, it is primarily the insecure who respond to questions defensively - those secure in their knowledge and abilities don't feel the need because they have no problem with the fact that they make mistakes - after all, everyone makes mistakes. It is inevitable that you will be challenged at times on actions that are necessary. ... Policy enforcement actions can be met with a polite description of the policy, and if further challenged, by suggesting a review be sought (or seeking one yourself).
As for the Sanchez / escort issue, it is more than that - when I challenged you about this (on Benjiboi's talk page, I think), the issue became clear for me: You see it as a BLP issue, and I don't, because I am confident it is true. I see it as an RS issue - and a silly one, because I think the video evidence should be allowed. So, for me, the question is whether we can find something that will pass RS to add what I see as a true and relevant discussion. Jay*Jay (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for sharing. I'm open to more discussion. In the interest of keeping threads from taking over my talk page, start a new one when you reply? Thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for disregarding your request to start a new thread. I did it because interleaving responses seemed desirable for clarity. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
My main reason for requesting that was to pull out the Eleemosynary issue, which I see as solvable. For the rest of it, I've either admitted wrongdoing or it's "in the clouds" and not specific to any action. Which doesn't mean I don't want to discuss it more, or that it doesn't have an effect on my or your actions, just that it's not as directly relevant. I'll move that to another thread.
I stand by my request to Eleemosynary. I feel, as an editor, that I have rights as much as the rest of us. If I ask someone to alert me about problems on my userpage rather than editing my userpage, I expect that to be honored. If people form opinions based on that interaction, so be it. The user was rude to me, I responded with a request, it was ignored, I stated my desire for a "ban". I still don't see that as having any bearing on my being an admin, my use of tools, or anything - this is simply about my "personal space", as you put it.
Now, out of curiosity, what part of that causes concern? What part of that do you see as "damaging my reputation"? And I'm not asking this in any way pointedly - I'm genuinely curious. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

May I be direct in answering? In my opinion, one of the large problems on WP is that WP:CIVIL has become overused, to the point that a direct, open, and honest response can be painted as incivil. I am not sure how I would formulate a response to your question if I am also trying to maintain the walking-on-eggshells version of civility that is needed in some areas of wikipedia. Jay*Jay (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure - be direct. I won't "ban" you for the response to my question in this thread :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, here goes. I think it is childish and unprofessional. We all have to deal with people who annoy us and upset us at times. At work, I am presently dealing with someone who really upset me in a big way. He is more senior than I, and won't go beyond "I accept that you are upset" to acknowledge that, just maybe, he did something wrong. I would love to be able to say "Don't talk to me", but I can't - it wouldn't be professional. I understand your desire to not engage with E. I think you made a perfectly reasonable request - ask me instead of ediitng my user page - and got a response you see as rude. I have no problem with you to this point. But your response was not the professional and reasonable response of an adult. It wasn't "if you are unwilling to respect my wishes, I ask that you stay away from this page, unless you need to speak to me in relation to my WP responsibilities". It was a foot-stamping "Get out and stay out - you're barred - it is mine and you can't touch it". Emotionally satisfying? Sure. Allowed for an editor? Unfortunately, yes. But not acceptable in an admin. You have accepted a responsibilty on WP that encompasses acting in a way that fosters collaboration and being accountable for your actions. That means behaving professionally and dealing with those who annoy you in the calm and rational way expected of a responsible adult; it means stopping and responding from the logical part of your mind and not giving in to the temptation for the emotionally satisfying rant. It means taking a deep breath and a step back, and returning to something when you can respond as you should respond, not as you want to respond. I'm sorry if this seems harsh, and readily agree that it is only a minor example. As a purely personal observation, the impression I take out of this is that you are younger than I had previously thought.

In addition, as someone who has had Sanchez leave messages for him, I can understand E's wish to remove such comments. When I find anything from him, I am likely to remove it, and to check the contribs to remove anything else he has added. I would leave a note that I had removed something from another user's talk pages so that the user could take any further action they saw as appropriate, but also recognise that others act differently. For example, Sceptre removed such comments from my talk page yesterday, leaving no message behind - and I understand that as an application of RBI. When you were feeling violated about E's edits, did you pause to consider how he felt about MS's comments? (I don't know what they were, but I have some vile things from MS and others on APK's page.) Did you just react based on how you felt? The timings of the posts above suggest that neither of you paused to consider and reflect.

I hope that I have neither upset nor offended you. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course you haven't offended - I asked you to be frank, and I knew (on some level) what your response would be. But I'm standing by it. While I try, in every edit I make and every interaction that I'm in, to be as calm as possible, to give second chances, to let questionable statements about me slide, I do have a line. E crossed it. This wasn't the first interaction we've had, and while it looks like it was a simple back-forth-foot stamp, it wasn't. I hear what you're saying, I recognize how it might affect my "reputation", but just as it's "professional and model" behavior to try to work things out, it's also professional, model, and self-preservatory to put a line in the sand and be willing to stand by it.
In truth, that's the way I am offline as well. I'm as faithful as a hound, even if it's to my detriment. Until you cross that line, which (in the opinion of many of my friends) is waay further back than it should be for my own health and safety. But if you do cross it, that's it. I'm done.
Sanchez has often crossed way over the line, as well. I'm not even close to comparing Sanchez to E, mind you, but I'm agreeing that some comments Sanchez has left are just wrong. This wasn't one of those. I'm not excusing him or his actions - he's been rightfully (IMO) banned and shouldn't be leaving comments at all. And if E had asked, I would willingly have removed them without a second thought.
So I do appreciate your feedback, and I totally hear what you're saying. Under other circumstances, I would be willing to reconsider. And it's possible that, in the future, E and I might just work things out. But not at this point :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin tools

I see now what you were saying about the page protection followed by my 3RR violation. You're right, that probably does look fishy. As I said above, I'm going to consider this issue and I appreciate your bringing it up.

I see a slight discrepancy I want to bring to your attention. In one paragraph, you describe how the "I'm right" defense might be instinctual. A quote: "I find it hard to imagine a circumstance in which the 'I'm right' approach is truly justified."

In the very next section, you say "You see it as a BLP issue, and I don't, because I am confident it is true." Note that you're basically saying "I'm right" :)

But to the Sanchez/escort point, you're right that it's an RS issue. Per BLP, the RS on that statement have to be "of the highest quality." A statement (video, audio, or written) by someone we've already determined is questionable (Sanchez himself) is not "of the highest quality." And note that I've never disagreed about his *being* an escort - I don't care if he was one or not. You and I both know that Wikipedia isn't about the "truth", it's about WP:V. But I *do* want us (Wikipedia) to be above reproach if we put that statement in the article. Partially because of BLP, partially because I'm a softy and don't ever want to deliberately hurt anyone, and partially because I know that there are subjects of articles that will cry lawsuit at any opportunity they get. So let's be "of the highest quality" so we don't have to deal with that. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the protection/3RR timing - glad to have given you some food for thought. Happy chewing! :)
Regarding the "I'm right", that's not what I meant - damn this written communication! When I feel like offering an "I'm right" response, I try to step back and give a more considered response. I have trouble imagining a circumstance where there is no other response that is either more more likely to advance the situation or more appropriate. My comment on BLP is predicated on an assumption (yes, I know - potentially dangerous) that your BLP concerns are connected to the potential damage to Matt if the allegations of escorting are untrue. If I had any meaningful doubt about it, I would be with you in arguing that BLP prevents reporting. Since I don't have such doubts, for me the potential-for-damage aspects of BLP are a non-issue, and the key issue is RS. I happen to think that the interview comments are reliable, provided all comments are reported. I'm not saying that I'm right that it is RS and you're wrong that it is BLP. I'm saying I recognise the BLP concern but don't share it because the I don't accept the basis on which I believe the concern is predicated.
As for suing, I appreciate your concerns about litigation, but don't share them - Matt won't sue because a lawyer would advise against it unless the allegations are false. In the context of a court case, a subpoena would provide the Fox footage and his escorting website, and the case would fall apart.
Regarding verifiability and truth, in a contest between the two, I think truth should win - but then, it is a rare situation where truth isn't verifiable. I don't think the escort discussion is such a discussion, as I think the facts are verifiable. A much more problematic case (to illustrate one reason for my preference), is when pseudoscience publishes verifiable claims that are so obviously false that scientists don't waste time formulating a quotable response. In such cases, WP:SYNTH can prevent the refutation of the nonsense, and in the absence of a definitive RS saying "it's rot", the nonsense is supposed to be left unchallenged. For me, truth should reign here, and call a spade a spade. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the real-world damages that Sanchez could suffer from us printing that he was an escort (Potential misdemeanor charge? Being dismissed from the military?) the fact is that he has said he wasn't. To him, then, it is a damaging statement. You can argue the monetary, reputation, military, whatever, but the end product is that he feels it's a damaging statement. I hate hurting someone without proof. So whether you share that feeling or not, it's there, and therefore a BLP concern. To me, anyway, that's part of "Do no harm" - these are real people we're dealing with, living their lives. If you want some weirdnesses that arise from that, take a look at Little Richard, who, we're now told, isn't gay. And Jay Brannan, who isn't "openly gay" and furthermore doesn't want any mention of being gay in his Wikipedia article. Despite the fact that he's been plastered on the cover of gay magazines actually saying "I'm gay". I lost that one, btw, and while I still think he's cute, he's lost all my respect.
So, back to the point at hand. I respect and agree with you about truth over verification. IMO, truth should win out. But that's not how Wikipedia is played. And I can see why - we have enough disputes now, even *with* those rules. Imagine what it would be like without needing WP:V to back up your claims? Oh wait - that's uncyclopedia. Never mind. :)
Given WP:V, then, we're stuck with looking for one about Sanchez escorting. If you haven't yet, take a look at the two semi-stalkerish websites out there. Neither, of course, is RS, but they've put together an impressive amount of info. One might also believe them. But none of it's WP:V.
Now, the reason I want to delete the whole escort thing from the talk page is because if these guys haven't come up with a WP:V that works, it's not out there.
Just my opinion.
By the way, I'm taking a wikibreak. I think a week, but I may not last that long. At least two days, though. Thank you again for all your discussion points - I appreciate them and have enjoyed this talk! When I get back, I'd be glad to discuss more of these and see what we can work out. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My userpage part II

Have a look at my talk page and let me know whether or not everything shows fine for you? I've redirected my userpage to my talk page and tweaked out the talk page to serve as both user and talk. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 16:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you get my email? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I did. Thank you! Now get a real computer you fanboy! Sorry for the delay in answering, I was out of town today. What resolution is your screen set to so I can check the same res on mine? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
1024 x 768 on my laptop. My desktop is 1152 x 864. Ahem. "Real"? How many times a day do you have to restart your computer? And how many viruses do you get in a week? =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
So is it showing crappy like that at both res'? And to answer your questions.. None and None. My WINDOWS XP puter gets rebooted by me on purpose every Sunday - yes, that's once a week. And when you use Firefox and AVG Antivirus, what the hell is a virus? :P - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Uniting Humanity

Hello!

It seems that My article about Uniting Humanity was deleted for (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance). Can you please tell me how to resolve this. The project is funded by the European commission and teaches people about global issues and transferring that knowledge to others around the world. If that's not mportance/significance i'm not sure what is!

Appreciate your comments

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben (talk • contribs)

Hi, Ben! Are you the same person as LesStratton (talk · contribs) that created the article?
The article was deleted because it didn't provide any information about why the "Uniting Humanity" program is important. I understand that it's an EU funded program, but the EU has thousands of programs. Why is this one special?
To help with writing the article, you might want to review Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. In general, an article is notable if there is significant coverage on the subject from multiple third-party sources. So if the UH program has been written about in the New York Times and Time Magazine, then we know it's notable.
I hope that helps! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

I think I've done everything I'm going to. See what you think of my additions. Aleta (Sing) 01:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot

Your SatyrBot has placed a Template:WPVN to Talk:Policies, activities and history of the Philippines in Spratly Islands. Please exclude that article from your Bot's targets. That article deals only with Philippines, not Vietnam.

I proceeded removing the template from the talk page. Please make sure this will never happen again.

If you feel that WPVN template is appropriate for that article, please have a conversation with me first. Thanks.

-- EstarapapaxTall back! 9:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Estarapapax! The bot placed the {{WPVN}} on the article because the article is in the Category:Spratly Islands. There are a couple different options for getting the bot to ignore the article. What I recommend is talking to WP:VIET to see if it is appropriate for the bot to tag all articles in that category. There are other options, so let me know if that doesn't accomplish what you want.
As a side note, having a project's banner on an article talk page in no way hurts the article, so you might consider just leaving it there. And please be careful of WP:OWN? Thanks much! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. Of course I'm very aware of that. While it is true that I'm the one who created it, I'm totally not against any person, whether Filipino or not, to add substantial information or remove insignificant and fallacious ones. I'm still improving the article, that's why I may have gone against some edits of other people (actually, it's just one). If you have gone far as checking the history of that article, you might have noticed that I have gone mad with someone before regarding his edits in that article. I will not go into the details, the only thing I can say is that I strongly believe what he'd done is inappropriate. I didn't reverted all what he had done. I'm a person who observe consensus. By the way, he's a Filipino, in case you're suspecting me as taking too much ethnic pride. After reviewing my original inquiry to you, I realized that you might have misinterpreted this statement, "That article deals only with Philippines, not Vietnam." Well, sorry for not elaborating further what I meant with that. For all I know, Wikipedia Projects are intended to improve and create articles related to the Wikiprojects' scope. Wikiproject Philippines deals with Philippine-related projects only. Likewise, Wikiproject Vietnam deals with Vietnam-related articles only. While it is true that articles dealing with Vietnam includes Spratly Islands, I believe that the article I'm talking about is totally not related to Vietnam. What can Wikiproject Vietnam do with that article? Can Vietnamese improve it? The only thing they can do is to watch it to prevent it from becoming too Philippine-centered, which is not in the scope of Wikiprojects. You're right in saying that it doesn't hurt the article since the banner is placed in the talk page. However, if it's inappropriate, it should still be removed. I'll take your advise to talk WP:VIET, but I'll do it later since I'm really busy right now. Thanks. Estarapapax (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing a cat and calling it something else

FYI: Note this diff on your userpage. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did Betacommand use that edit summary? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Well that's obvious! Because Bush is a Queer Wikipedian, of course. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
How could I forget! AgnosticPreachersKid (talk)
LOL! The things you can learn reading Wikipedia... Aleta (Sing) 20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand‎ as well since that's where all the hoopla has moved to. Nothing but lip service going on there really, everyone saying what they want but no one trying to come to a consensus. I started a Support/Oppose thread about requiring BetacommandBot to follow {{bots}} but it got removed twice, the first time by Betacommand himself. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 20:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the tips on contributing. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just one quick dumb question. If one is attempting to edit a page (add info), sometimes when one is finished, the edit omits much of what was on the page to begin with. (If that makes sense.) Is there something I'm doing wrong? Again, many thanks!MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not quite sure I understand your question? There is a difference when editing between clicking "edit this page" up at the top of the screen and clicking the little "edit" that shows up be each section header. Is that what you're talking about? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

One more dumb question. I don't quite understand the footnote process. When I've tried to insert a footnote in the text, it seems to wipe out all the text beneath it. I'm sure I'm doing something wrong but not quite sure what it is. Thanks again for your help!MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Geology

Hey Satyr, just a heads up that I've recommended SatyrBot to Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology. I don't know if your services will be requested, but they might be. Aleta (Sing) 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Acutally, John Bot will perform this, once I get a trial :). CWii(Talk|Contribs) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good - and/or let me know if you need a backup :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This weekend

I plan on having someone

 my


I hope you enjoy your weekend as much as I will. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

lmao - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 06:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
ROTFL! Enjoy, sweetie! There ain't much of that available in my neck of the woods, so have a spank on me :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 08:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You could always take a stroll around UNCW and admire the "scenery." AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to ask, how do I hide the table of contents on my user page? I tried adding a code, but I had to rv cause it didn't seem to work. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe __NOTOC__ does it.
Ever been to Ibiza? I have. Not the island - the club here in Wilmington, NC. It's not quite like the island - though a couple beers later and it's not *too* bad. I even had someone buy me a shot, which was probably more than I should have had for a Thursday night =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, I've been many times. It's on Market Street downtown. We use to stay at the Courtyard Marriott where Market and College Road intersect and go out to the club on a Friday night, recover the next morning, then go to the beach. I've had some makeout sessions in the room upstairs with the big couches. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a cute room! I didn't even get up there this time. I'm not a big bar fly, so I may not go again this year, but if I do I'll go look for signs you were there... :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
signs=stains on the couch. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed above that you mentioned you had a shot, but I didn't realize until now that it was jager! APK loves his jagerbombs. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
See! How can I refuse with such a winning smile!? Yumm =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You better hit that Satyr! :P - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm a good southern preacher's kid...I don't know what you're talkin about. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
<splutter> No good, APK - I've known far to many preacher's kids for that to fly :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've dated quite a few. They're a strange lot, those PKs. APK was a late bloomer though, because of his upbringing. I didn't have my first cigarette and alcoholic drink until I was almost 22, right before I graduated from college in P'cola. It all went downhill from there. Although, the head deacon's son and I did have some fun in high school. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I remember going to a big revival in P'cola at Brownsville. I got "filled" alright and it wasn't with the holy casper. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I bet you were speaking in tongues, but with expletives thrown in every other word. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: userpage/category

If that category ever gets restored, it will be hit with the fifth (arguably sixth) deletion and the fourth CSD:G4 speedy. I somehow doubt that it will come back, but I'll make a note not to edit your userpage per your request. Octane [improve me] 07.03.08 0921 (UTC)

What's with the urge to purge these categories from user pages? I don't get why these people care so much. I read the discussion from the link on ASE's page. Nosey people are peculiar to me. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Not enough to worry about apparently. Aleta (Sing) 03:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That's sad. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is there some WP policy to cite to explain why the red lettering for deleted images should be removed? Read this to understand what I mean. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any policies or guidelines. Images run under a different set of guidelines than articles, so WP:REDLINKS doesn't address your question. And a look through WP:IFD likewise is not fruitful. So I don't know =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war?

Oh my FUCKING GOD. The images were improperly deleted and I'm being accused of vandalism for trying to restore them. Thanks so much for your assumption of good faith. Warms my heart it does to know that editors with whom I've had former dealings are so quick to jump in with false edit war accusations. Thanks a lot. Otto4711 (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Well hey, if it makes you feel better to declare my actions an "edit war" far be it from me to protest. Otto4711 (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't appreciate false accusations, regardless of whatever wikitrappings in which they may be dressed up. Otto4711 (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one noticing a violation of WP:3RR? 5 reverts and counting. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I should probably have used something other than a canned 3rr when I warned him. Sigh. I actually *like* Otto4711, even if we've had our differences. That's not going to help our relationship at all, though, is it. I think I'll go watch Bee Movie since the first season if Dante's Cove is still 12 hrs away from being downloaded. I mean borrowed. Sigh. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird admin thing

Howdy, you seem more in touch with editors from an admin point of view. A user, Mhsb, appears to have some sort of disagreement with some other user Opinoso. I left a message for Mhsb back in early February, and had his talk page on my watchlist.

At any rate, Mhsb moved his own user page to the article namespace, but using the name of that other editor as the title. Then Mhsb again moved his user page (now in the article namespace), to another title, TheKindEditor.

I just moved it back since userpages don't belong in the article namespace, but I figured some sort of administrator might care? This sort of thing is totally not my area of expertise, so if you can take care of deciding if those moves were problems, and do the report in the proper place if so, I'd be much obliged. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt evading block again?

An IP purporting to be Matt Sanchez has posted on Benjiboi's talk and Happy-Melon's talk pages. Aleta Sing 04:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well apparently you've already seen it. :) Aleta Sing 04:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec x 2) And FYI, I've asked Slakr to block, as the first admin who had previously blocked Matt IP socks and recorded on the Bluemarine ArbCom page that I found was currently editing. I noticed that you had removed the comments to Benjiboi when I went to do it. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the full moon in retrograde or something? Weirdness abounds!! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, just another day in the life of Wikipedia... lol Aleta Sing 04:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Aleta, remember what I said in the e-mail? Who needs a writer's strike when we gots the dramz on WP! AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm never going to get to watch my movie. Sigh. I'm in ur wipedia, adding 2 ur dramaz! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It's true, APK, it's true. Satyr - go, watcheth thy movie and forgetteth this stuffeth for a couple hours! Aleta Sing 04:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I will - I'm AN/I'ing the below weirdness, then I'm logging off. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You know, Matt really should help us all to relieve the stress he causes with a little recreation - but then, I don't think he'd meet my standards for participation!  :P Jay*Jay (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't need Matt for that. (grins) I'm going back and forth to the computer during commerical breaks on SNL. I can't even enjoy a show w/o having to see what has happened on here. I needs help. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Gag me with a spoon! I can't believe you just suggested that! Yech! /me runs away to my movie -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
While Satyr is watching his movie, let's trash him on his talk page. Ummm, I'll go first. *sings, "Matt and Satyr sittin in a tree...." AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Satyr, to be fair, I did add a caveat that was a very mild version of the thought in my mind at that time - a comment that I heard once before that "I wouldn't even [insert appropriate short-but-direct euphemism for sexual activity] him with your [insert appropriate short-but-direct euphemism for male 'equipment']"
APK, to judge from the above, it might have to be "S - P - E - W - I - N - G ..." :D Jay*Jay (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

All these evades of his year long block only proves Arbcom is a joke. Seriously. So this IP got blocked. He will be back. This is like what, his 254604603168463406135073501078th IP address? I've finally unwatched that article and am thinking about just AfDing it myself. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 06:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he's a pain in butt yeah, but he's no longer directly getting what he wants or stalling work on the article. (Of course, tensions there are related to his lasting influence, but that's not what he's actively doing anymore.) Aleta Sing 14:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Give it a little time. Tensions will fade, the article will reach an equilibrium. And what you said about blocking can be applied to SOOO many vandals it's not even funny - Matt's only evaded about 6 times - see the logs. That's nothing compared to some really nasty vandals. BTW, Bee movie was okay. Not great, but okay. And Dante's Cove is almost done downloading! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Return of the homophobe: 68.175.69.223 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) droppings cleaned up by APK, but a new block and case notation are needed. Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for one week, logged. Thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you - I just wish there was a way to make him go away, without semi-protecting talk pages. Jay*Jay (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Baburi

If you go to Historical pederastic couples#Pre-modern period you will find a quote from Babur's autobiography which describes well the episode. I found it sufficient to include him in that group, but it may be an uphill fight to maintain an LGBT categorization. From a contemporary perspective, all men of the time could have been tagged that way. Haiduc (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, but all men aren't emperors. And all men didn't leave behind an extensive autobiography that includes their infatuation with cute guys. Sigh. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

HELP

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is being attacked again by a suspected sock of Leaveout. I can't edit the article anymore w/o breaking the 3RR, but Zencv is being difficult on the article and talk page. The style of edits, edit summaries, talk page discussions, etc. are all signs of a sock. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Leaveout. How do I check to see if it's the same person? I've never requested Check user before and I don't know how to show the differences because there were so many edits made by the now-banned IP's. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user about 3RR, which really should have been done a couple hours ago. You might try 3RR *before* your second or third revert :)
I don't really know much about checkuser. You've reported on socks before - this should be done the same way, no? I'm honestly clueless on that regard. You might also try WP:ANI to see if they're a sock. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Amstell page

It's the latter show as in Never Mind The Buzzcocks (rather than Popworld, which would make it "the former show"); the show isn't John Barrowman's, he was just a celebrity panelist. ^_^ Rachel Summers (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, so can we rewrite that sentence? As someone unfamiliar with Barrowman, Amstell, NMTB, *or* PW, the sentence's antecedents don't make sense to me. How about:
He has referred to his orientation numerous times for comic effect on both Popworld and Never Mind The Buzzcocks, even being challenged to a "gay-off" by John Barrowman when Barrowman was a guest on NMTB.
Or spell out NMTB. Maybe I'm just not getting it and need more coffee, but the word "latter" there confuses me. I'll leave it up to you :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, that works. Thanks! Rachel Summers (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
NP. BTW, I sorta reviewed the history a bit. This kind of low-level non-edit-war is really tough to deal with, but I've watchlisted the article and will help out if I can. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that'd be much appreciated! Rachel Summers (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

DiamantVert modern potting techniques

Hello, I have read the guideleines, for wikipedia, and it was not my intention to spam, please provide some guidance as to how the article can be revised. I have prepared some pictures to add to illustrate the techniques. Furthermore the article notes that the idea is patented however the patents are now in public domain ( I can add more references for the patents) I saw in reading the guidelines that sources should be used.

sincerely,

Hi!
There are two issues you want to be careful of when writing your article, and you'll want to look over "How to write your first article" to get some more information. The first issue is Conflict Of Interest - are you the person/service you are trying to create the article about? In this case, are you the inventor or significantly involved in DiamantVert? Writing an article about yourself is severely frowned upon by Wikipedia - read through WP:COI when you get a chance. If your service is truly notable (see the next point below), then let someone else create the article. That way there are no allegations of advertising, conflict of interest, etc.
The other issue, and perhaps the most important reason your article was deleted, is Notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, we (generally) don't write articles about every person, service, band, film, etc in the world - just the ones that are most notable. It's a somewhat subjective thing, but we do have guidelines and policies in place that describe the encyclopedia's take on it. Read through the notability guidelines when you get a chance.
I hope that helps. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any further questions. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 13:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for intervening on the Professor Akram Fouad Khater article. I have responded on his article Talk:Akram Fouad Khater page. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Category deletion

The difference between it and "regular" deletion is that you have to empty the category. Deleting the category does not remove the category from the articles. And you can see that here. So you just need to go into every article on that list and remove the Works with auric section category from each article. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bots can be used but honestly, when it's less than 20, I don't bother. You don't need to add anything. You just remove the category from the articles. Here is an example. For the edit summary, I usually use "rem cat per" and then the internal link to the deletion discussion. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 14:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I depopulated the category myself. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi!!!!!!

You are such a girl

Yay! Thank you :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL Aleta Sing 16:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on warning templates

I'm wondering what the procedure should be now for warnings on the talk page of the IP who keeps removing or severely minimizing the info on Simon Amstell's orientation; even assuming good faith, they're removing sourced info which is sound and notable, but they've already received a "final" vandalism warning on this page. Does one start over from the beginning with level 1 or 2 "please don't remove cited info", add a more severe warning..? Rachel Summers (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already left a "please talk about it" message, which seems to have spurred some discussion. And my *guess* is that Enigma365 is the IP, but time will tell. There does seem to be some progress going on - you might want to just wait a bit and see what develops. We're not on a deadline here, so give the discussion some time to develop. You might even leave the text alone for a bit while the discussion is going on. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
D'oh! I've already been fiddling with the text. *wince* Well, I'll try to curb my immediatist (I think that's what it's called) tendencies for a bit and see what happens. Also--Enigma365, really? I wouldn't have guessed that, based on their earlier comments on the talk page... Rachel Summers (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops - you're right. Probably not Enigma. I saw a redlinked user pop in to the discussion after I left my "hey" message and assumed. Bad me :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Batsu

Hi, just to let you know, I reverted your edits to Buffy Summers. Buffy may not identify as gay, and may only be in an LGBT relationship for one issue, but it's clearly earned some notability through media attention so I think the category is appropiate. The article doesn't cover it in much detail at the moment but once we do, I even think we should list the article under LGBT studies.  Paul  730 22:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't it a fling? If she doesn't identify as lesbian or bisexual, I don't think she belongs in the cat OR bannered as part of the project. The TV show has our project banner, Willow (of course) does, but I don't believe she needs it. It's just not central to the character. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Having discussed it with another editor I have to agree with you about the category, but am still on the fence about the project - doesn't the coverage this story has recieved make it relevant to LGBT studies? I must say this whole Batsu thing is very confusing in general - I'm loving the story but I've heard so many opinions one way or another about over it the last week that my head is spinning. You can't say Joss Whedon doesn't know how to rile people up and get them talking. :P  Paul  730 01:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't you remember when the show was on? I finished 2/3 of the episodes SCREAMING at Joss for how he was handling something, or what someone had said, or being left on the edge of my seat for an hour, or the cliffhanger! He's an absolute MASTER at his craft, no doubt about it. If I could have his babies! Wait - did i say that out loud?
In any case, I kinda think this is like WP:BLP#1E - it's a significant event, but will pass. Though if she has another fling, or decides she's really a boy, then she'll definitely be part of the project. And ya never know... :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
But if it's notable now, isn't it notable forever? I thought notability doesn't age. I'm not saying we should give it undue wait by dedicating half the article to Buffy's experiment with Satsu, but if it's getting coverage now, I don't think we have to wait and see if she qualifies as relevant to LGBT studies. ;)
I got into Buffyverse through the videos/DVDs, which I'm kind of happy about, because I don't think I could have waited for some of the cliffhangers. Buffy has a sister? Fuck waiting a week, just stick on the next episode! Lol. But I'm loving the comics. Some people complain that a monthly comic is too long to wait, but I think it's very well paced. I'm satisfied, while still really excited. It's perfect.  Paul  730 02:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Notability of a subject is forever, so they say. But I think you hit the nail on the head with WP:UNDUE. Buffy's got six seasons of eps behind her, almost all of them in one way or another dealing with the men in her life. Now the *show* is certainly relevant to LGBT studies, but Buffy? Though there are some scenes between her and Faith.... never mind :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my butting in to say "awwwyeah" about those Buffy/Faith bits of subtext. Awwwyeah. Rachel Summers (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Rachel, this is for you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

William Alexander

Hi, in response to your question about William Alexander being included on the LGBT list: Well, I didn't include it in the stub that currently is his biography because I didn't want to give disproportionate importance to his sexuality. "William Alexander Levy, a big gay homosexual,..." seemed a bit too much. If you go over to the short article on the Hangover House, his most famous work, it does touch on his homosexuality because the house was designed for three gay friends/lovers (of which Alexander was one). The sexuality/relationship of the first inhabitants had relevance to the design of the home, and (I feel) therefore to the article. I added a footnote on the LGBT list that links to a podcast in which William Alexander's sexuality is discussed. You should be able to review this from any computer. I hope this helps clarify! Udibi (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Olivier Py

Given the theatre directorships, i cannot really see how you thought there was no assertion of importance. I think it will hold up perfectly well at afd; though you or of course welcome to nominate it, I'd advise agaist it. DGG (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Gay Affirmative Psychotherapy

I need help for this article. On german wikipedia we have a good article. In english wikipedia this article is until today missing. The Gay Affirmative Psychotherapy is the opposite to conversion therapy . It helps gay people, who ar unsure and have fear, what maybe the society or family may say and so on. Maybe you can fill this article with more information. GLGermann (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music To-do list

Hi there,

I see your bot has been updating the small to-do list for WP:Classical music (and many thanks for that). Are you still updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/To-do list though? The page has been neglected for some time and I've made it into a redirect for now. Personally I'm not too bothered if that To-do list was just left as a redirect. We already have Category:Classical music articles needing attention.

But it would be really nice if your bot could help us populate that category by just tagging all articles with Template:Classical that need attention with {{Classical|attention=yes}}. It's not urgent but it would great if that could be done! Thanks for all your work so far! Centy – reply• contribs – 18:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

See what you think of the full list - I neglected to set that up for you, though the bot's updating the sub-pages regularly. If that's not what you're looking for, let me know? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
That's great..thanks! Centy – reply• contribs – 11:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast

Hi, and thank you for pointing out that an article about a book need not be deleted - simply because one Wikipedian dislikes the point the book makes. It's possible to have a neutral article about a "book which makes a point", right? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome, I guess? I don't know anything about the book, and very little about the evident debate on the talk page? But it was labeled with {{db-spam}}, which that article is not, so I declined speedy. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There are definitely issues with the article, including POV and RS, but spam it isn't. I endorse removal of speedy. — Becksguy (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Transgender and transsexual actors from the United States

Category:Transgender and transsexual actors from the United States, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Maman a tort

Hi,
The real name of the song is "Maman a tort", but it was also released in an English-language version. However, the French version is much known than the English version, thus I think the article should be named "Maman a tort", not "My Mum Is Wrong". I wanted to rename the article as "Maman a tort", but I didn't manage to do so.
Regards,
Europe22 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi SatyrTN, I understand your reasoning on my talk page, but the English title is almost unknown by the vast majority of Wikipedia's readers. We generally associate the first single of Farmer with "Maman a tort", not with "My Mum Is Wrong". I let you move the title as you wish (it isn't a very important issue ^^), but if French wikipedians want to read "Maman a tort", I'm pretty sure they won't think to look for "My Mum Is Wrong", as the other articles about Farmer's songs appear on Wikipedia under their title in French-language. PS: Sorry, my English is not very good, it's not my native language. :) Sincerely, Europe22 (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi SatyrTN and thanks for your replay on my talk page ! Europe22 (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Superman X (Kell-El)

I believe that "Reason for deleting" number 7 applies here. "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion." "Superman X (Kell-El)" is a "novel or very obscure" way of writing that character's name and it is highly unlikely that anyone would type it like that if looking for the character. That is why I placed the speedy delete tag; it seemed a clearcut case to me. I will most likely nominate it for deletion. Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Powercorp (again)

looks like I was too slow with the Powercorp edits, and it's been deleted! I've been reading the articles WP:CORP and WP:COI, and afaict there is no explicit rule forbidding me to create/edit this page, but a lot of warning and caution obviously about conflict of interest. I think this summs it up from the COI nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount. I'm sure I can edit without promiting my own interests! I'm pretty sure I can also show notability. Should I just go ahead and "do it"?

Thanks for your input. Iaindb (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Plague

Hi SatyrTN. I've added a bunch of info from the deleted Mukilteo Fairies and Behead the Prophet pages, plus some references, and I've tried to clean up the writing a little. Let me know what you think. There are a lot redlinks pointing to Mukilteo_Fairies and Behead_the_Prophet,_No_Lord_Shall_Live which I'd like to fix, but I won't bother if you still think this needs to go to AfD. But hopefully you don't! Please let me know what you are thinking. THanks, Yilloslime (t) 05:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Cogam

Define 'okay'. :P Well, it's a translation of the Spanish article that survived an AfD. Cogam's very relevant in Spain, but the article was almost deleted because they wrote it themselves, heh, in quite a flattering tone I might add. So it was rewritten and neutralised somewhat, enough to survive an AfD but clearly still needing more work. And it seems what we have here is a translation of that. You should know they contacted me when they thought the article was going to apparently be deleted here. XD And they were blocked due to their username. I have the article on my watchlist, just in case. If need be, I can work a bit more on it. I think they are pretty relevant, even on an international level, but I'd need to research that. They were a big part of the reason why SSM was legalised in Spain. Just tell me what you want, and I'll see what I can do. :P Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That'd be COGAM. I'm just lazy. XD Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 03:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Masturbating satyr

Wanna explain this? Image:Masturbating satyr, amasis painter.JPG lmao - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, let me! You see, sometimes when a satyr loves his wang very, very much... Rachel Summers (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
lmao - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh - sure - like you've never done 6th century Greek porn! =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Good thing you're up for deletion as it looks like you're suffering from some sort of ailment in the penile region and I don't think you should be showing that off on Wikipedia. - Dr. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I already got my bling - I'm on a vase! Are you?!? =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
All you gotta do is look up in the sky at night. I'm everywhere! - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Ooo, did y'all read the description of the image? Apparently Satyr here has an incomplete or imperfect soul! <tsk, tsk, horrors!> Aleta Sing 04:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm offended! Or amused? Or tittilated... Hm =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

LMAO. How can the image be saved from deletion? This is way too good to lose. — Becksguy (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture connoiseurs please follow the link in my sig.... Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You look 30 lbs. lighter in the second picture. Like sex, I hear it burns off calories if you do it enough. How do you think I lost 70 lbs. since high school? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Mhsb

I just posted on the Admin noticeboard regarding Mhsb. I noticed your recent discussion regarding this user and I just want your opinion on the subject. Thanks. --James Bond (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Sandbox/mh1

Wikipedia:Sandbox/mh1, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/mh1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Sandbox/mh1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Harland1 (t/c) 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts?

About this - I was told to ask your opinion. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If he admits it, I'd say something like "Rhodes stated in his blog that blah blah." As ASE said, if he hasn't denied it, then he's said it. It's still a "primary source", which is frowned upon in general, but we rely on those for statements about sexuality all the time. My biggest issues with these situations (eg Sanchez) are a) the legality issue and b) the "do no harm" issue. But if the source has stated it, and hasn't recanted, then they have to deal with a, and they don't see any harm (b), so go for it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)