| Revision as of 04:53, 23 February 2010 editUnitanode (talk | contribs)Rollbackers6,424 editsm Reverted edits by Ncmvocalist (talk) to last version by MiszaBot III← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:19, 23 February 2010 edit undoA Nobody (talk | contribs)53,000 edits →My Block: civility warningNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| You may have seen comments elesewhere that I have been undertaking adminsitrative actions while affected by external RL issues that have affected by judgement. My reaction to the furore over my block is clear evidence that I was not thinking straight when I made the block and that I had no business blocking anyone while my judgement has been impaired. The upshot is that I have decided that I need a decent break away from admin activity until such time as the external stressing factors have reduced to an acceptable level. I will be using a non-admin account until I feel better and will not be involving myself in any drama round here either. I doubt that you would accept any apology but you are entitled to an explanation for my recent actions. You may also be interested in checking out your block log. . Best wishes ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC) | You may have seen comments elesewhere that I have been undertaking adminsitrative actions while affected by external RL issues that have affected by judgement. My reaction to the furore over my block is clear evidence that I was not thinking straight when I made the block and that I had no business blocking anyone while my judgement has been impaired. The upshot is that I have decided that I need a decent break away from admin activity until such time as the external stressing factors have reduced to an acceptable level. I will be using a non-admin account until I feel better and will not be involving myself in any drama round here either. I doubt that you would accept any apology but you are entitled to an explanation for my recent actions. You may also be interested in checking out your block log. . Best wishes ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *Your apology is accepted without reservation. And thank you for the note in my block log as well. Greatly appreciated, and I hope you feel much better soon. ]] 03:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | *Your apology is accepted without reservation. And thank you for the note in my block log as well. Greatly appreciated, and I hope you feel much better soon. ]] 03:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ==== | |||
| Please remember to maintain ] in discussions by avoiding using such swear words as "fucking". Avoid escalating tensions by toning things down. Thank you. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 16:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:19, 23 February 2010
- About My PROD tagging
The discretion I use when deciding whether or not to place a PROD tag on a BLP is simple: is it referenced? If not, I place a tag. If it's poorly referenced, I look a bit deeper, and either place the tag, or stub-ify. I never take much more than a minute or so, and I'm not going to research 50K+ unreferenced BLPs. The tagging has worked, as several of the articles are now being sourced. I'm not going to stop doing it, so I respectfully ask that any notifications that someone has removed the PROD (while adding references) leave out any lectures on that issue. It's not going to change.
Here is where I will be manually archiving any DYK or ITN notices.
| This is Unitanode's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 days  |
| This is Unitanode's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 days |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
I edit some political articles; please read this before accusing me of bias.
My votes in the last four presidential elections: Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama. I do not have a bias for (or against) any political party.
BLP Mentoring
I see you are active in the BLP space and I wonder if I could seek some guidance. A while back I came across this coatrack -I don't even recall how I ended up there. I had never heard of Behe before this and the intelligent design/evolution food fight doesn't interest me in the least but I was appalled with the article as I found it. It seems to exist merely to discredit someone (who as it turns out, is a published professor at a mainstream university) whose theories the editors take issue with. I listed the BLP issues I found on the talkpage here. A day later no one had responded so I removed the un/poorly sourced material in a series of edits starting here. These were quickly reverted. Discussions went know where so I went to the BLP notice board (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Behe). That went nowhere so I reposted a more detailed list of the BLP issues back on the talk page (). I though we were getting somewhere when Guettarda dug up some references to address a few of the issues but nothing was ever changed on the article itself. I'm tempted to start removing material again but don't want to edit war. Am I misreading the policy? Does it not mean what it says about deleting on sight without discussion? How do you handle it if a group of editors decide to simply ignore the issues and revert all attempts to remove objectionable material? Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have a lot of time (and with starting a new job on Monday, even less so now), but I can say this: if you have BLP concerns, and have followed all the steps you outlined above, beginning to remove whatever Guettarda has not been able to source should be no problem at all. I will warn you, though, that Behe attracts the same kind of, well, "enthusiastic" editors that the GW-related articles attract. You will have to be persistent, civil, and patient beyond belief to bring anything resembling balance to that article. I'll put it on my watchlist now, and tinker with it as I have the chance. Regards, Scottaka UnitAnode 23:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting this edit by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs).
Also see this comment by the same editor at my talk page: User_talk:Nsaa#Too_far. Nsaa (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
My Block
You may have seen comments elesewhere that I have been undertaking adminsitrative actions while affected by external RL issues that have affected by judgement. My reaction to the furore over my block is clear evidence that I was not thinking straight when I made the block and that I had no business blocking anyone while my judgement has been impaired. The upshot is that I have decided that I need a decent break away from admin activity until such time as the external stressing factors have reduced to an acceptable level. I will be using a non-admin account until I feel better and will not be involving myself in any drama round here either. I doubt that you would accept any apology but you are entitled to an explanation for my recent actions. You may also be interested in checking out your block log. . Best wishes Spartaz 19:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your apology is accepted without reservation. And thank you for the note in my block log as well. Greatly appreciated, and I hope you feel much better soon. Scottaka UnitAnode 03:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
February 2010
Please remember to maintain civility in discussions by avoiding using such swear words as "fucking". Avoid escalating tensions by toning things down. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)