Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:50, 3 August 2012

Template:Avanu is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:FFD instead.

The usage of this non-free media on Misplaced Pages is under review for compliance with our policies on non-free content. You are welcome to join the discussion on its entry on the Non-free content review page. Do not remove this template until the disputes have been resolved.

                  .....uuuxuouuuuuuuuuu.....
           ..xnHHMM$5$$$$$$$$$R$$$$$$$$$$$$NWbeou..
      .::!!H!MMMMM5$888888888M8888888BB$$$$$$$$$$$$Neu.
    .<!!!!!!!!H@M**#"##T?????!!!???TTTTT###*R$$$$$$$$$$Nu
   :!!!!!!!!!!!!!)xxuoiX!~~`````)???!!!!!!!!?TT#*$$$$$$$$k
  dX!!!!!!!!)>!:H#"???"!..::::!!:!!!<~!!::()!!!!!!?T*$$$$R
  ?$U!!!!!<!XWiix:xxxxxXX(..<???X()Xud%:::/`!!:::)!!!?T*#)
  :8$NiX!!!!!!""""""""?##!**@@****##"">!!!~---!!!!!<!!XxH6
  9$$$$$RHnx:::~~<<:<<<<<<<<:<~~~~~~<<<<<<<:<:~<<(:xHX88$$k
 :$$$$$$$NN@WQSXXx+<x<::.L::..:::::.....:<x+:nHS88NN$$$$$$$
 t$$$$$$$$$$$$NNNWWUQXQXXS?!??!????XXXUUWWWWWNN$$$$$$$$$$$$L
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$NNN8NNNNNN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$>
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$R$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$k
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$7$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&T$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$XR$$$$$$$$R$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?QR& $$$$$$$R ?T*$$$$Z.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$B?$$M ?$$$$$$$     T#$$U.R$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.?$R  $$$$$$R 9NWX   ?$% #$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$W.TR  RZ#$$$B ?R$$WX      R$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$N.?%X9$N.#$$X  TRB$$WX XXW$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$RX ?#$$$W.#$NX  ?TMR$W?#$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$# ?HX ?T*$$U?#$NU     ?  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$R   X$WX  ?T*NW.R$NWUX   X$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$R   X$$$$NU   ?T% R$$$$WXM$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$X  X$$$$$$$WUX    "T*R$$N T$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$X X$$$$$$$$$$$WUXX         9$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&X8$$$$$$$$$$$R*#RH UxX  XU$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$B?#*$$$$$$$$$R XWiU ?#$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$RX WWQ R$$$$$B ?*$MXWWUT*$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$X W#$$WU R$$$$X  ?X$$$$NX#$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$& RW $$$N #$$$$WX  ?T*$$R ?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$X R$6 R$$ R$$$$RtX        9$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$WX #$NW   $$$R#T?R*NUUXXXU$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$NX ?$$$$$$$R tNNWbU2TR$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$W  ?*$$$$$B ?*$B$$$WX#$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$NX  ?#$$$$UX ??T$$$$W?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$U   ?#R$$$UX  ?R$$$H?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$WX    ?#*$$NWWUB$$R 9$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$R$NU     ?T#**R$*T? 9$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ?T$NUX            X$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$U  $$$NWUX        U@$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$RNW$$$$$$$NWWWWWWN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ?TR$$$T*$$$$$$$$$$R$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"   ?#$$W2#$$$$$$$Rt$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ NNUX  "T*H?#$$$$R $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$X.#$NWX   ?  R$$$  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$NX ?R$$NWX   X$$R  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$W. ?#R$$W?h$$$?  R$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$R*R$WX  ???  R$$   X$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ N.?#$WX     9$$  X$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$X.RWU$$$WXHWW$$$  W$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$NX.TR$$$$$W7$$$$  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$WX T#$$$$R R$$& $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$X   ?TT? X$$B $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$TITR$$$**R$XWX.   .W$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$RX$U R$? .....$$NWW$$$$$ 9$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?R$W@$X $$R9N6.*$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$X #$$$$X ?t$$$$N.#$$$$$$ M$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$X T$$$$WX ?#R$$$X.$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$X MR$$$$WX  ???  X$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$U? ?R$$$$NW:.  XW$$$$$ 9$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$U  ?TR$$$$$NWWN$$$$$$ 9$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$NX   7#R$$$$$$$$$$$R 9$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$WU  ""?T#*$$$$*#" X$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$N6             X$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$F
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$W6        XW$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 '$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$NWWWWW@$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
  '"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$R"
     #$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$#
      T$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
        T$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?
          ?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?
             ?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%   Brian D. Quick

Welcome to my Talk page.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

No hard feelings

I'm aware I take a harder, bright-line approach to COI editing than some other admins do; and it's not a bad idea to keep me reminded that my stance is a smidgen controversial in some circles. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I jumped up and yelled 'fire' a little too quickly as well. I think I learned to think just a little harder after this and I appreciate that you're being as on top of things as you are. You take care of a lot and I appreciate your effort. Wish you well. -- Avanu (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Do not refactor my contributions to an RFC

It is simple: do not do it. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No one did. Your comments were not on topic, and were not relevant to a standards-based discussion on the topic as given. Collapsing or Hatting off-topic material in a discussion is perfectly in line with Talk Page guidelines. -- Avanu (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK

While I love boldness as much or more than the next guy, you had to know that this was going to get reverted. You have to have a pretty clear consensus on changes for policies, after all. The boldness did give me a smile, I have to admit, but we have to follow the proper bureaucracy here at Misplaced Pages (the encyclopedia that isn't a bureaucracy). I do have an example on my talk page that I'm looking at starting an RfC to get included in the policy, regarding talk pages. I will likely tune the wording a bit and start the RfC in a day or two. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

4 proposals

In order to stop edit warring on the Mitt Romney dog incident page, I restored a version of the article from of few days ago, and issued 4 proposals based on changes editors were trying to implement. Feel free to comment. Talk:Mitt_Romney_dog_incident#Four_Proposed_Changes 71.125.74.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

WQA

Hi, IRWolfie closed the discussion with a decision of no incivility on the part of Guy. I think he is wrong. Latest diff from guy and recent comments at WQA indicate that he is going to continue to follow me, and to bias reply against me.

BTW, I don't think that I was forum shopping. I talked at talk x-ray computed tomography, we had a content dispute, we went to the DRN, I have reasons to suspect COI (not just because people didn't agree with me), and I asked people to declare it in accordance with the COI guideline, I was told to go to the COIN to discuss COIs, I did, the discussion was closed by a volunteer, afterwards an other volunteer at the talk page wrote, that it was closed because it was only a discussion and not an accusation. It was only a discussion, since I didn't want to make accusations because the COI guideline instruct to discuss first and try to reach agreement. Guy exploded at the COIN thinking that I am accusing him, but I didn't accuse anyone there. Then I asked at the COIN talk page why the discussion was closed, since the header said that the COIN is for advice as well. Guy added his disclaimer there, and IRWolfie- collapsed the discussion, before I received an answer from a volunteer at the COIN. At the MEDRS talk page there was a discussion about the medrs rules being too complex, and serving commercial interests, and I vented there that I agreed, and mentioned my case as proof that something is wrong with the rules. At the NPOV there was a post before me from someone who criticized the undue weight policy, and also the interpretation of due weight at that thread seemed different than what I saw before, and I joined the discussion in order to clarify my own understanding, and I found out that I didn't understand before, because I took due weight literally, and because other editors use that term in a way that suggest a different meaning than what it really is. At the NOR I have started long ago a generic discussion about if simple logic is a synth, I didn't mention my case, but someone else knew about it and bothered to point it out to everyone. I wanted to discuss if simple logic is a synth generically but the other participants refused.

WP:FORUMSHOP state that forum shop is raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators. From these four places only the DRN is a noticeboard/administrator. So there wasn't going to multiple noticeboards/administrators. I hope that going to the DRN for a content dispute is not considered forum shopping. The other places were talk pages, and in any case in any of the four locations different issues were discussed - determining the reason the COIN didn't give advice about possible COIs - expressing opinion about the rules of MEDRS - how is due weight determined - is simple logic a SYNTH. I hope it is clear that these are not essentially the same issue, these questions may have arise due to the same issue, but they are not the same issue.

In my opinion, even if someone is forumshoping, the issue should be first determined at some talk page maybe a WQA, and in any case following around and inserting off topic messages to discussions is not civil. For some reasons a few other participants seems to think that Guy's actions were not uncivil. --Nenpog (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that you take a breather from that article that is causing Guy Macon to label you as a forum shopper. Perhaps a week, perhaps longer. The reason I suggest this rather than continue bumping against Guy in one forum after another, is that if you give this time to cool off, you can think about the approach, and if you revisit this after some time has passed, it will be less likely that Guy will be able to claim forum shopping on your part. You might also see that there is a different approach to accomplishing some of what you might want or you might gain a different perspective on what your fellow editors are saying. If you have patience with this, and if Guy continues to follow you even after that patience has been demonstrated, I think you would have a stronger reason to claim that his actions are unwarranted. However, it may also give him time to reconsider his approach to dealing with you if he sees your patience and willingness to work through process, even if it means it takes longer. -- Avanu (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I will consider it. I am not sure if I understand why taking a time off would help to convenience anyone that I am not forumshopping. --Nenpog (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If he revisits the same issue again after "after some time has passed" it will still be forum shopping. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, this comment by IRWolfie contribute to my lack of understanding expressed above. --Nenpog (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

He had several admins and an arbcom member telling him to drop the COI issue, I think that's enough to say maybe it's time to work on something else. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A DRN volunteer told me to take the COI discussion to the coin see diff. --Nenpog (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nenpog has already taken the same dispute to DRN, NOR, NPOV, COIN, COIN talk, 2 x IRC etc (he raised essentially the same issue in every place). the editor has also been blocked previously for edit warring in this topic: . IRWolfie- (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is just false. I have already wrote about DRN, NOR talk, NPOV talk, COIN, and COIN talk above. IRC doesn't count for anything IMHO. I wonder if talk pages count, as the WP:FORUMSHOPPING is about noticeboards not talk pages, and in any case different matters were discussed in each. --Nenpog (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess the point is, lots of time, or novel arguments can deter a claim of forumshopping. If you are putting the same debate into multiple places and doing so very very sequentially, it can appear to be forumshopping. There is an escalation process on Misplaced Pages, and sometimes this can be also construed as forumshopping. The thing is, I don't want to be discouraging, not encouraging with these suggestions. The debate on the X-Ray stuff is something that seems highly technical and for whatever reason, your fellow editors initially didn't agree with the way that you wanted to include the material. You could adjust the presentation of it, give it a different tone, attempt to start an article that covers it exclusively, find an article where it is a better fit, you could sum up what you want to add and ask other editors for help to determine how it might be rephrased or retooled to be bit for inclusion in some article, etc. Often if you simply come in with a very humble request that you believe something is important and you would like help, there will be some people who will be helpful. Of course there are some negative people too, but that's life. The other alternative, for now, is simply let it go, work on some other stuff for a while, and revisit this later. Fresh minds, fresh editors after a few months, and you might see a different outcome. But there are plenty of alternatives here, just try your best to avoid doing things that seem to violate policy. -- Avanu (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Now Guy, and IRWolfie came to my talk page to accuse me of edit warring, and Guy threatened to block me, see diff. What really happened was that some editor added something, and Yobol reverted it with a wrong explanation, I reverted and wrote that the explanation is wrong for that revert, Yobol reverted again and discussed at the talk page, I discussed, doc james discussed, some other editor discussed, it seemed like there was a consensus for the edit with minor changes, and then the original other editor rewrote his edit and added it to the article. Is that edit warring? --Nenpog (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

After reading that, it feels as if Guy might have been reflexively commenting. I would just explain pretty much what you just said, and that the other editors and yourself came to a fine conclusion, and leave it at that. -- Avanu (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I did not double check to confirm that the edit warring actually occurred (No doubt Nenpog is going to shout GOTCHA!!! and quote part of this sentence out of context as he has done so many times before). All I know is this; I saw a warning about edit warring. I then saw Nenpog giving a completely bogus answer that showed zero understanding of WP:BRD, then I saw him rejecting all efforts to correct him (I don't think Nenpog has ever changed his mind on anything based upon other editors trying to explain where his thinking went wrong - he appears to be completely ineducable) So I told him what would happen if he edit warred again.

The foolowing is pure opinion; take it for what it is worth. Avanu, you might want to look at the bigger picture here. You have had your share of conflicts on Misplaced Pages, but as I see it, they are always the sort of things where even if I disagree, I can see that you have a valid point and have put some thinking behind your position. Nenpog isn't like you. Where you give intelligent responses and clearly have a good-faith desire to do what is best for the encyclopedia, Nenpog only works toward demonizing CT scans and attacking anyone who gets in his way. By giving him any sort of encouragement, IMO you are inadvertently making the problem worse. You also see problems in the responses to Nenpog, which is a good thing (I have paid attention to your criticism of me, and some of it hit home). Alas, while that criticism is good for folks like me, it is bad for Nenpog. It only encourages more misbehavior. Please consider taking a bit of a firmer stance against Nenpog being disruptive and please consider correcting those who you see reacting badly to Nenpog being disruptive on their user talk pages rather than in discussions with Nenpog. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's actually occured to me.... how to stay encouraging in one way, without contributing to making things worse. I think it is a very valid point, which is why I think I'll go ahead and stop contributing quite so much to this thread. I want every editor to feel that they are able to do what they feel is right, but unfortunately what each of us thinks is right at a certain time might not always be helpful. @Nenpog, if you're reading this, keep in mind that things aren't just a one-way street. Your actions get a response, and if you keep getting a certain response that you don't like, try something different, or try just avoiding the thing entirely. Good luck. -- Avanu (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that edit warring did take place, reverting the revert of bold content is edit warring, this should instead be taken to the talk page. Nenpog also encouraged another editor to continue the edit war (see my comment on his page). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It was taken to the talk page. At the time of the reverts, there was a standing discussion about the same topic with the same editor, which that editor has completely ignored for a long time. --Nenpog (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Lest anyone misunderstand, the reason that I did not bother to check is because I have never -- not once -- seen IRWolfie post anything that is not true, and I have seen Nenpog be deceitful on multiple occasions. Thus, when Nenpog added his latest false accusation to his long list of previous false accusations, I ignored it. W.O.M.B.A.T: Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What is a point... this is

. <-- -- Avanu (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to the point. I read it. It is about applying rules you hate on other editors, in order to make them hate them too. I don't think I did that.

Additionally the example I gave there is not far fetched/made up, it is a real story although the names and places has been alter to protect the identities of the characters, and in order to address the problem in a generic form. --Nenpog (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

"As a rule, one engaging in "POINTY" behavior is making edits which he or she does not really agree with, for the purpose of discrediting a policy or interpretation thereof."_WP:NOTPOINTY - and I didn't make an edit that I don't agree with. --Nenpog (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Mauch Chunk Switchback Railway dispute

I am halfway through reading the AN/I report and felt compelled to thank you for your calm words there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliment. It is nice to see that you peek in on that as well. -- Avanu (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being gracious. I was cranky and came down a bit hard on you on Jimmy's talk page. It's been a very frustrating situation to watch, I know the dispute resolution process is likely to suck up energy and time I don't have, and the endless friction without a positive resolution is just very dispiriting. Choess (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a bunch of the problem is simply people straying off track into personalities. doncram seems to dislike feeling persecuted, and if the arguments stayed impersonal and 'strictly business', I think we might see a better result. -- Avanu (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If he'd address the content issues instead of complaining about the reporters, we'd be getting through things a lot faster. The other day, he was doing an article about an architect who worked on a lot of Carnegie Libraries, and I found a ref that mentioned he was Carnegie's brother in law. I dropped a note to Doncram, thinking he'd be interested: his response was Sarek, I don't welcome your commenting on my Talk page and I don't welcome your following my contributions closely, as you started to do today. In the past, what seemed like friendly interactions devolved into edit conflicts, "gotcha" claims, repeated confrontation, and wikihounding. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If you'll recall, many months back, you raised my ire, and just recently I let the memory of that poke me into an uncivil response with you. I've decided that you're a great guy, a little bit on the pokey-stick side of things, but you have a earnest desire to do what is right. In other words, I let bygones be. You and Doncram have a ways to go on getting to such a point, and while it seems he's antagonized a lot of folks, I don't see him as beyond hope, just someone who needs a certain type of patience that not all of us have. If he says 'don't post on my page', let it be, and stick to good arguments on the articles. It is annoying to have people cast us out of their page, in fact, I did unequivocally say that to you once, but I don't feel that way now. And I don't intend to let it be a problem again. But I had to change my mindset on you before that could happen, and I had to realize that my actions were getting in the way of you and I being able to work together as colleagues. I wish you the best, and I hope that all of us can work toward welcoming all of doncram's contributions and guiding him in a more positive way. -- Avanu (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Dennis Brown on ANI to try to resolve the issues, since I barely know him, and I'm pretty sure he hasn't previously been involved with any of the go-rounds before. He's agreeable, and plans to check in tomorrow to see if everyone will buy in to a nice structured discussion. Maybe this is what we need... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Newts

References to Python are always good. You were turned into a newt, and got better. :) Alas, Mr. Figley was not so lucky. :( ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I maintain to this day that he was turned into a Knute, and never really got better. Check out the costume Palin's wearing in that scene... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Never too late to try to get things on a better footing... Is strawberry ok? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Why thank you much. Strawberry is excellent. -- Avanu (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll at Shooting of Trayvon Martin

This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page of Shooting of Trayvon Martin, your comments would be welcome and appreciated on the allegations of witness #9. Note: If you choose to comment, please mention you were contacted via this notification. Thanks!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Gulli			List of military operations in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
	Theomachy			History of The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)
	His Excellency: George Washington			Austerity
	Oxford and Cherwell Valley College		Merge
	Sar-e Pol city			Crowdsourcing
	Sun and planet gear			New Hampshire Republican primary, 2012
	Puerto Rico Republican primary, 2012			Plurality of gods
	Don Carlos Smith		Add sources
	Lisa Hughes			Taliban
	Kabul–Kandahar Highway			Mark Kelly (general)
	X3: Albion Prelude			Mormon (word)
	Stephen E. Robinson		Wikify
	Muhammad Gaddafi			The Rise of Mormonism
	The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles			Baseline (budgeting)
	Primitive Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)			John Baskett
	William C. Conway		Expand
	Estakhri			Lake Jackson, Texas
	Bouncing ball dynamics			2004 in Afghanistan
	John H. Walton (theologian)			Public image of Mitt Romney

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Nenpog vs. Guy Macon, Doc James, and Yobol. and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn RFC/U

Hi! I withdrew the RFC/U. blanked the page, and asked for deletion. This nuked a couple of your comments but I figured you would not mind. Feel free to revert if you do. Cheers! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It is no problem whatsoever. I think Nenpog is really digging his own grave here, but like I said, I think he's said he is going to accept the ruling but is going to exhaust his appeal process first. Not my first choice, and I don't think he's being smart about this, but it is something our process provides for. -- Avanu (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, I typed up a response to the Admin overreach / raking up muck post, then I deleted it. Then I created / deleted it twice more and decided to sleep on it. Here's the thing; every so often I see something you wrote that makes me reexamine my thinking. Even when I end up disagreeing, I find the comments to be valuable and thought provoking. In this case I really don't want Nenpog unblocked on a technicality and then instantly re-blocked -- and I think the false accusations against the doc are enough to justify a permanent ban -- but on the other hand, you make a very good point about one person going cowboy and bypassing procedures, and it was wrong to criticize you for making that point.

BTW, Nenpog has never accepted anything, and IMO he is about as likely to give up voluntarily as I am of becoming he pope. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to you getting to ride in the Popemobile one day. And yeah, I don't see a lot of hope there, but the fact that he committed to respecting the community result made me think he would do his usual pointless debate and then be done, and hopefully turn into a productive editor. I'm not sure that will ever happen at this point. But who can say. -- Avanu (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to your comment at RfArb

I didn't feel like making the rfarb any larger, so I'm going to respond to your last comment right here. I agree that there was no emergency requiring immediate attention. I think the reason there was really no outcry against the block then is that anyone who payed attention to Nenpog is basically sick of him (with the exception of two or three people). So ignoring those three people, everyone, perhaps even the arbitrators themselves, didn't want to see Nonpog's next edit, given that his previous 400 consisted of twisting policies, ignoring complaints, and hurling accusations. My opinion, anyway, and perhaps I'm projecting. In fact, the special way that Nenpog irked me is why I entered the discussions and kept my mop away from him. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

RFAR request rejected

Per this, the RFAR request that you were listed as a party in was rejected and closed. - Penwhale | 12:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Red colored username

I'm new here, so please be patient.

Question: Why are the usernames different colors, usually black, some red? What's the difference? 67.59.92.60 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Red links are pages that don't exist. Many brand new users don't have a User Page or a User Talk Page, so those links are red and when they sign their signature, it is red, rather than blue. -- Avanu (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Good one

I am not sure of all the issues surrounding Newton Geek , but in the context of that conversation -- this diff was hilarious! ---> . ----- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure anyone got the joke there. :) -- Avanu (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Assume good faith

I've noticed that in some of your responses are troubling:

1. . An accusation of name calling when no such thing occurred.
2. Here you misconstrue why I provided the notification, and imply I am here to debate the editor.
3. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive760#Accusations_of_forum_shopping Interpretation of a thread as a personal attack when it is not a personal attack
4. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive760#Admin_overreach here you claim "Earlier today we had an Administrator initiate a thread here ridiculing Nenpog's appeal", where is that thread? I couldn't find it.

This isn't an exhaustive list. Mislabeling things as personal attacks or interpreting them as not assuming good faith is inflammatory, see WP:AOBF. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since this is text, and harder to interpret, I could be wrong, but I'll explain my reasons for each of these. (I numbered your posts, hope you don't mind.)

1) Newyorkbrad says he is "trolling us". In my book, that is a personal attack. I realize that "trolling" is not identical to "troll", but it is definitely close enough, and also Newyorkbrad responded with "my comment above might sound cryptic and abrupt", which shows that he recognizes that it might seem a bit rude.

2) That wasn't a response to you, it was a response to the whole thread. We see very very often, someone will file an AN/I request, "He stole my dog!", and the first thing that happens is people start saying, "Well you weren't a very good owner; after all how often did you walk your dog?", "You are here complaining about your dog!? What about your cat?!", "Well two years ago you lost your dog, maybe you're just wasting our time now, go look for your dog yourself."

Those are obviously analogies to the point, but it gets WAYYY off track with people blaming the person, laying verbal traps and generally being impolite to a person just for asking for help. Maybe the person was misguided or spiteful when they filed, but our responses to them should be generous and thoughtful, not pointing fingers and pointing at things that have nothing to do with the actual request. AN/I would be tremendously more productive if people stayed focused on the issues raised, stayed professional, and ignored everything else.

4) Ok, finally, Nenpog obviously has poor english skills, and also had trouble recognizing what is and is not forum shopping, why did Sarek need to go to all the trouble of creating and saving a PNG of the list of 4 things AND point it out to AN/I? I see that thread as simply something like gossip, because Sarek didn't bother to explain a rationale for his post, he just dropped a strange image in AN/I with the clear intention of people drawing a negative conclusion.

You'll see above on my Talk page, July 16, Jimbo came to this page and left a compliment for the tone of my comments in trying to keep us from going 'off the rails' in the railway dispute thread. My intention in these is not to have a lack of good faith, but to recognize that our WP:Civility pillar is being ignored -- A LOT. People at AN/I (and honestly all over Misplaced Pages) routinely restort to tactics and actions that are not civil. Some kinds of incivility are very clear.. someone directly addressing another editor and cursing, that's an easy one. But sometimes it is more subtle, and sometimes it is the group doing it without even intending to. My warnings are not intended to provoke, but to remind people AN/I *should* be about fixing the situation in a positive way. A good many AN/I disputes are clear, solved quickly and no one is beat up. But often on a daily basis, we see a thread start where editors start attacking one another, and that isn't right.

Just a day or two ago now, I asked for a policy-based block rationale on NewtonGeek's block. Someone pointed at me and questioned my percentages of edits in each Misplaced Pages area. This kind of thing happens a lot. I think AN/I needs some reform, and I think the Admin corps needs reform, most specifically, some kind of dispute resolution training. Dennis Brown has struck me lately as an admin that I can actually trust and respect to consider the entire situation, and he tends to stay very professional in conversations. I strive for that, but I have a streak of idealism in me that will sometimes raise my ire. Generally, I respect courtesy and patience though. And I believe the more we demonstrate it to one another, the more we will see it expressed in return. Hope this answers your questions, IRWolfie. Let me know if you have any concerns about my responses, or anything else you see me doing. Have a great day. -- Avanu (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In the first case, 1. the editor may in fact be trolling, Newyorkbrad clarifies this by saying there is significant background to the issue. 2. your response appears to be directed at me, that is unintentional but your comment appeared at one depth below mine in the same thread. 3 + 4. Sarek didn't make the original thread with the image, another editor did, Selket.

Further: I think people were very generous with Nenpog, but then he moved through almost every noticeboard, policy page, irc (I personally spent about an hour or 2 discussing with him to try and convince him of policy etc) etc with the same arguments, ignoring every response, all the way to arbcom, where he still kept arguing but not listening to advice: there are limits to how far things should be tolerated. It's perfectly civil to call for a block of a troublesome user, particularly when dealing with the very difficult case of civil POV pushers. Civil POV pushers use tendentious editing but are incredibly difficult to spot in a diff since it's a pattern of editing. They effectively eat up time that could be spent improving the encyclopedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that "trolling" can be considered an ad hominem (even though in speech it is rapidly becoming a verb in its own right), while using a phrase like, "I believe Newt may have a hidden motive" would be less ad hominem. Specifically, I just have a problem with people tossing the word "troll", because I believe it is an overused attack in Internet circles.

On #2, I didn't mean for it to appear to be directed at you. I was just posting at the end of a long long series of posts... I suppose I could have started a new section for it. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

It was Sarek actually (I think Selket just added a sig for him) And I agree with you that people were trying very hard with Nenpog. The problem is that these threads don't stick strongly to the topic at hand. AN/I threads could be made a lot shorter if people simply focused on the complaint and addressed it and moved on. Nenpog seems like a very system and process oriented person, and by non-Misplaced Pages standards, he might have felt he was doing what was allowed. I (and many others) warned him to be cautious about doing this stuff. Anyway, the point is that he should have stopped and we all should have *strictly* stayed on track. -- Avanu (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

@Avanu: The problem that I see is that misguided editors greatly inflate the importance of any statement that could be seen as supporting their position (or at least, which appears to oppose their opponents). With someone like the editor in question, the only thing that might stop them digging themselves into an indefinite block is a clear and solid explanation that, regardless of the merits of their argument, their approach is unacceptable at Misplaced Pages and they must stop now. When nice people chime in with extraneous commentary, the problem editor feels vindicated and keeps digging. Looking at the situation another way, may I suggest you keep a personal scorecard and record the outcome of places where you intervene against consensus—which editors that you support turn out to be useful contributors, and which not? Also, consider the effect on good editors merely trying to get through the day when they are distracted by someone on a Mission who violates every principle of Misplaced Pages; often the good editor cannot get an admin to issue a simple and final warning: "stop that now or I will block you". Once that important issue is addressed, we can work on the question of whether an undue feeding frenzy occurred among the spectators. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree, Nenpog for example latched on to a comment of Avanu's in support and used it to indicate he has support. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Avanu, I wanted to stop by because while we're about the same wiki-age, I think you may be a bit naive as some elements of the community. Reading your commentary around the bot block thread on ANI struck a cord in me in that it reminded me of the commentary that I have seen from at least a dozen similar users over the years. These were people who disagreed with admins not following the letter of policy and would show up asking where the warnings were, why the block was so long, under what section of policy it was placed, etc. While these individuals were technically correct that the action was not grounded in a specific provision of policy or performed in accordance with the explicitly defined process, people tired of their constant advocacy on behalf of users who common sense indicated were treated in an appropriate manner. The lucky ones are marginalized as gadflys and ignored. The unlucky ones pick up an enemy or two who doesn't like the hypertechnical critique and had them branded as tendentious and disruptive. This usually leads to a topic ban or a block. I say this only as advice to you that your wiki-life may be much more enjoyable if you focus on discussing users who were actually wronged through abuse and corruption and focus less on making SOP conform to POL in cases where the user still would have ended up sanctioned and no one really cares that policy wasn't followed. MBisanz 02:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent suggestion, but to me, blocking a guy who was editing productively is one of the worst things we can do. This guy didn't know any better, and he wasn't given an opportunity to change for the better. WP:BITE clearly applies, and while Johnny-on-the-spot Admins are great for getting things fixed fast, there needs to be a reasonable way to remind people of what policy actually is, not what it is thought to be. -- Avanu (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

When you've done 1,800 blocks and looked at 1,800 other blocks, you figure out that it's rarely worth it to go the mattresses over individual blocks like that. MBisanz 02:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully this next comment won't come off as smug or something. Trust me it's there's a good point in it. There was this girl I met and asked out, and a friend of mine, more of a ladies man, had been telling me ways to help a girl feel special on a date. So, I used every technique he suggested. Of course the obvious things like opening doors, but even little things, like the way you hold her. At the end of the date, I actually didn't want to date her any more, mostly because she had cats and a *very* smelly litter box. However, I noticed something a few weeks later, and found out that she had never been treated so well on a date, and never even imagined that she was worth that. She started dressing nicer, caring for herself more, and became even more attractive and outgoing and amazing. All because someone had decided to treat her very special.

So what does this have to do with editors and Misplaced Pages and blocks? We never know what a small amount of thoughtfulness will do for a person. I was very surprised to see how this girl changed and became more confident and amazing, and took more control of her own life as a result of a bit of thoughfulness on my part, which in some ways was simply me trying to impress her. But when we take extra time to be nice, it isn't a waste, it is civility and humanity. If you've done 1,800 blocks, it can become very routine and very blasé, but to the extent we can, it shouldn't be. -- Avanu (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you and that is a good story. It would be wonderful if we could give every editor the attention and support to help them grow. But in a large system like this project has become, the best we can do is to triage and try to keep things stable. That means, to me, accepting we will be impersonal and unable to support most prospective individuals and that we can only hope to develop larger support structures to those who can be handled by generic means. Also, the whole idea of consistency in handling new users, while possible under six sigma, isn't something I think we can ever hope to attain. MBisanz 03:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think having some kind of leadership and training among admins would help. Let's say I go to the trouble of getting Username policy re-written, crystal clear, and it says parenthetically 'Don't block good actors, only block bad actors'. And then we still get blocks like this? What am I to do? That's actually something I did get done for the Promotional Usernames, and I didn't see that it was needed yet for the entire policy so I didn't push for it. I mean, SOP is great, but if SOP doesn't change with policy, what good is it? Honestly I think part of the problem is the technology itself. If we blocked someone like this and gave them a form that helped in the rename process and moved their User pages for them, I would be a lot less annoyed by it because it wouldn't come off quite as Bitey. But as it stands, we often end up with a person who barely understands Misplaced Pages in the first place, and they are probably confused and saying... what the heck did I do? And if they try again, will they get it right or get blocked again? We block and then walk away and don't really have a technical implementation that supports them in this transition. We say "you're wrong, do it right!" and leave their head spinning. If it is as simple as 'Watchubot' becoming 'Watchubawt', why not have a process where we do the rename for them? Next time they log in with Watchubot, they get redirected to a page explaining that their old username will die in XX days and they need to begin using the new one. But our current process is not so friendly and it only takes a moment to explain. If we need better technical tools, I'm all for that, but I don't like the excuses I see on AN/I that justify blocks that don't line up with policy. -- Avanu (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I just don't think it's worth the effort. Particularly in this context. There are 284 uses of the bot username block template in user talk. Something like 5% of all accounts make under 5 edits and less than 1% make over 10 edits. Coding the technology to try and retain the three possibly useful editors out of that group wouldn't be worth the manpower. MBisanz 06:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Being incivil/uncivil in an edit summary is still being rude

Please watch the sarcasm and dismissiveness in your edit summaries as this is being uncivil, bitey, and is just as bad as insulting someone in an edit. Please watch the sarcasm in the future. There is no need for such childish behavior. Thank you.Camelbinky (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Which sarcasm? The 500 years thing? Or something else? -- Avanu (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to say thank you for keeping an eye on the various noticeboards. I often see your comments there and I'm always impressed with your levelheadedness. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Its very kind of you to say. -- Avanu (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

I appreciate your enthusiasm at ANI with Watchubot's block, but in my opinion, it is sometimes better to take a subtle approach. I did this with my comment above when I said "Normally, when an editor is making constructive edits, we try to not block them unless they edit after they have been informed their username is inappropriate. Ask Orangemike about that." This doesn't mean that we can't block someone with the word "bot" in their name, because technically, it is a borderline call. We should try to not block them, but it is still the admin's call. I felt it was less than optimal, and in my opinion, wasn't necessary, but I didn't make the call, and it was still within policy. Sometimes being subtle is more effective at persuading others, giving them the benefit of considering your points on their own time. We can still voice an opinion, but driving the point too deeply can have the opposite effect and make people defensive and more likely to dig in. I didn't see this earlier, it has been a busy day, but I would have had to have said that the block was allowable but not optimal. And please don't take this as criticism, just as helpful advice. The policies are intentionally vague on many points, as to give admins the freedom to exercise good judgement in any circumstance. When they do things on the stronger side of the policy than some might prefer, we have to engage and take a friendly approach to persuade them to consider other options. Otherwise, people might see us as combative, and that makes them less likely to listen to our future arguments. It is a tightrope, this is for sure. This is why I take a long term approach, as these things simply will not change overnight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 02:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, but I hate to see a person get bitten. Unless they are just very much into it, like that weird girl from Twilight. I have worked on changing policy, and for promotional accounts, I think OrangeMike was finally willing to be less bitey after some discussion and user involvement. Personally, I think it is silly for the Wikimedia software to permit a username if we're just going to block it right away anyway (talk about being bitey). But I don't know how this is going to change unless persistent (and yes, gentle) pressure is put on people to not be bitey and learn to follow the guidelines. I honestly don't know why the Admins don't revolt and ask the programmers to simply fix a lot of the manual process things that bite users anyway... but your points are very well taken, it just doesn't sit very well with me for an otherwise innocent user to have to be smacked for our failings as a community or software. -- Avanu (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Brittany Binger

Thank you for reversing that edit about my engagement being nullified. Here is the only link to us separating. If you could pass on to that person who keeps bringing it back on my page, I'd appreciate it. Thank you, BB

http://www.terezowens.com/grady-sizemore-brittany-binger-call-off-engagement/

Jpjpstar (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages requires a better source than a gossip blog. I don't know exactly what to suggest because its a bit of a tough thing, but its all about being able to verify what is here in Misplaced Pages. While I would love to take you at your word, there's no way to be sure that someone isn't simply playing the system to get something changed, and so we need some outside, verifiable source that has a reputation for reliability and while Terez might be reliable to some extent, that blog probably doesn't have extensive editorial staff and fact checking. I'm not saying mainstream media is a lot better most of the time, but its the rule of Misplaced Pages. -- Avanu (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So, what your telling me is I have to get it in the mainstream media and make a "story" out of it, which is exactly what I don't want to do, because it's a difficult, personal matter. What can I do? Can someone call my publicist? This needs to stay off my page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpjpstar (talk • contribs) 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So, what your telling me is I have to get it in the mainstream media and make a "story" out of it, which is exactly what I don't want to do, because it's a difficult, personal matter. What can I do? Can someone call my publicist? This needs to stay off my page. Thanks. Jpjpstar (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Like Avanu said, we have no idea who is asking to make this change. This is not a personal distrust on your part. It is part of Misplaced Pages's policy of using reliable sources to verify information on the encyclopedia. --Jprg1966  03:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

@Jpjpstar, let's go to the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard with this and see if we can figure out an alternative. Please be prepared to think about creative approaches to verifying this. I'll start a new thread there now. -- Avanu (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you for helping me. Jpjpstar (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Doobies

I must admit, that did put a smile on my face, thanks, I love that song and the Dobbies in general. I mean well, but I am often misread by people, perhaps my delivery isn't the best, but hey, I was raised in the ghetto. ~ GabeMc 04:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

DB's talk page

Why would you remove another editor's non-vandalism addition to a 3rd editor's talk page? JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Misclick, probably -- he quickly reverted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, rollback is great, except when you're trying to look at Misplaced Pages on an iPhone screen. -- Avanu (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done the same myself. Sorry for the interruption. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:BLATHERSKITE listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Misplaced Pages:BLATHERSKITE. Since you had some involvement with the Misplaced Pages:BLATHERSKITE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 23:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a response for you. -- Avanu (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WQA existence

There is a discussion the existence of WQA here: Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#Proposal_by_Xavexgoem. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of POV tag

it is not a lack of article neutrality, but a lack of a topic within the article

That is a demonstrably false statement as indicated by Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. Please self-revert. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You are wanting to include a sub-topic about Gun Control in the article about the shooting. A lack of information about gun control responses does not seem to bias the article. There are dozens of potential content forks about a shooting of this magnitude. Unless you can clearly demonstrate how your particular sub-topic is being inaccurately represented *AND* unduly under-represented, the POV tag is the wrong tag for this. -- Avanu (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You made a false statement that you are unable to support. Describing facts about federal and state law has nothing to do with "gun control". It has to do with citing significant sources about the topic of the shooting and the laws in the state where the shooting occurred. The POV dispute tag was added because another editor claimed that adding material about gun laws from reliable sources about the shooting was not neutral. Viriditas (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, so if not "gun control", then what? -- Avanu (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You're doing it again. Citing sources that describe federal and state gun laws related to this shooting has nothing to do with a debate or a discussion about gun control. Viriditas (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So, I'll ask what I just asked another way. What *does* it have to do with? I think this is the problem... you just don't explain yourself very well. -- Avanu (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're just trying to waste my time asking the same question over and over and over again. I think it is clear that the federal and state gun laws are part of the milieu of the shooting, which is why every significant RS has covered them. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, so "federal and state gun laws are part of the milieu of the shooting". OK, yes, everyone agrees with that statement. The shooting was in Colorado and that is a state, and it is in the United States. And the guy was using a gun. So, the question goes back to what I said before.... and what others have said. I mean, you can connect a LOT of things into the environment of this shooting, but what we include and how we include it makes a difference. -- Avanu (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no good argument against inclusion other than IDONTLIKEIT. Virtually every reliable source discusses the status of federal and state gun laws during the shooting, and by describing those laws, we are not engaging in any form of gun control debate. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk page

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to request that you don't use my talk page anymore. This comment you added has got to be the worst case of WP:IDHT that I've ever seen, and I would prefer if you would stop wasting my time by asking me questions I've already provided answers to in another discussion. This is the third time you've done this, and I really don't want to deal with it anymore. From now on, keep your repetitive question asking to the article and noticeboard pages. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you believe you have answered people, but you keep saying the same thing over and over. But whatever dude. Enjoy banging your head against the wall some more... I was just trying to explain why you aren't getting anywhere. -- Avanu (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is no problem. You deliberately asked questions I gave you answers to and then asked them again. You're either editing in bad faith and attempting to waste my time and harass me, or you don't understand what you read. Viriditas (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I, and others, have tried to get a straight answer from you on what you want to add and why. Your reasoning has mostly consisted of the fact that you have 20 sources that show something or other, and you can even show 50 sources or more, that show something or other. The question is "what the hell do you want to show and why?" Seems like you thought that everyone was super biased and disliked you and rather than taking time to explain, you ran to other forums to get the answer you wanted. -- Avanu (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That's never been reasoning at all, yet you keep saying it was, even though I've corrected you before. I've already answered these questions. I'm afraid you'll have to participate in those other areas and stop wasting my time. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Then just like my question above, rather than simply saying "nope, that isn't it", and giving no hints, why not explain in the affirmative ... what is your reasoning? -- Avanu (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've already explained, several times now. The preponderance of reliable sources covering the topic of federal and state gun laws shows us that it's a significant issue worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia article. There's nothing biased or irrelevant about saying "federal and state laws cover this" and "federal and state laws say this". Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Worthy of coverage in the 2012 Aurora shooting article? Or just any article? And if in the shooting article, how much coverage? You could just write up what you would like to add and put it into the Talk page and say 'how's this?' -- Avanu (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to create a solution with: Misplaced Pages:Gun debates in article space but it seems some don't even like the solution.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I do like solutions. This is not a solution for a problem, it is a problem. Arcandam (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Cregza

Why did you remove it from WP:UAA. Although it appears to have zero edit but this account has created a promotional article Cregza fraternity and has just been deleted--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Rebaptism (Mormonism)			Stuxnet
	Council of Friends			Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
	Palorchestes			PlainTalk
	Fall of Kabul		Merge
	Puli Khumri			Significance of numbers in Judaism
	Alabama Republican primary, 2008			Tehom
	Hearts of the West			Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
	Qadhadhfa		Add sources
	Juvenile Instructor			Radio Kabul
	Restored Church of Jesus Christ			List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters
	Azizi Bank			2003 in Afghanistan
	Balkh University		Wikify
	Ri Yong-ho			Christian Science Hymnal
	Rocky road (dessert)			Washington and Lee Swing
	Abdullah Laghmani			Gerard Bodifee
	Fuel (film)		Expand
	Alec Yasinsac			2001 in Afghanistan
	Abdul Wahid Baba Jan			Mormon cosmology
	New Community Jewish High School			Tunnel Setup Protocol

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In the name of civility

You are editwarring with AndytheGrump on his own talkpage repeatedly reinserting a personal attack after he removes it and tells you not to post there anymore - and you are doing so in the name of civility. You don't see a problem with that?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've left him alone. The larger problem here is an editor who completely endorses the idea that he can be as rude as he likes in the name of getting the content 'right'. And the even larger problem is that he's being encouraged to some extent by a subset of editors who agree that rudeness is not that big of a deal. While it is *possible* that Iamthemuffinman is a sockpuppet, heck anything is *posible*, he is completely correct at this point in asserting that Andy is hounding him, and continues to focus on him even during his block. At AN/I, it turned into a bad personal attack on Iamthemuffinman, which led to a utterly failed attempt to resolve this at Wikiquette because Andy simply wouldn't acknowledge that his behavior was unprofessional.

I've seen lots of people assert that User Talk pages aren't "owned" by an editor any more than any other page on Misplaced Pages, so in a sense, this is just one more forum where Andy is continuing the behavior that got him in trouble in the first place. I would strongly suggest that an administrator remind him that his behavior needs to be focused on improvement of the encyclopedia, not on continuing personal attacks on other editors.

As I said, I've left him alone at this point. As you and I can both see, he isn't in a mood to hear what I'm saying, and so I'm not helping by commenting on his page. But I hope someone can help. It isn't anyone else's fault how he chooses to behave. Unfortunately too many people are blaming everyone else. -- Avanu (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)