Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Your upload of File:ABU Cardinal spinning reels.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

What have you got against smurfs? Some of the best editors I know are smur... wait, this is a trick, right? To get me to reveal, uh, something that I shall never reveal... hah! Your evil scheme has failed again, FiddleGargamel, take that.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I aspire to being Smurfette! Fiddle Faddle 17:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, in that case, quit being jealous, no need to make trouble for the smurfs just because you wish your skin were tinted with a bit more of the blue shade. Btw, you can fix that little problem, you know. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Whaaaa? Err, ahem, that was a bit undignified. My dear friend Tim, came here to say, that this confused me: "If it matters that Wikipedia is losing editors and failing to attract new ones, something I am unconvinced about...." Obviously, from their statements, SomeoneNotUsingTheirRealName sees declining-editor-count as evidence for their survival-of-the-fittest theory. And furthermore, they see the bureacracy as natural, and a co-evolutionary win. They don't dispute your correct assertion, that bureacracy is driving away editors, and a primary cause of the net-declining-editor-count we've seen steadily over the past five years. But they don't care, because they see downsizing as an indication of strength, not of weakness. Why just think, every active editor is, on average, taking care of 9999 active readers, all by themselves! Efficient, eh?

  So my question is, why are *you* unconvinced? Perhaps I can convince you, and then maybe you will not-join the not-a-cabal. You appreciate WP:IAR. In another area, you realize that our defenses are weakening over time, relative to the ROI that our adversaries will receive every time they manage to bypass said defences. Most importantly, no fresh-faced reinforcements are coming, the bureacracy (and other wikiCulture problems) is driving any such potential folks away. Optimal? Not hardly. We need to have a readers-per-editor ratio of 1000:1, or maybe even 100:1, not the current 10000:1. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We also have quite a bit of locker room (and worse) homophobia, something to be deprecated. Our esteemed founder's talk page has a discussion of that, too. Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules that keep us from improving the encyclopedia, whilst simultaneously making rules to deprecate editors based on their POV, is hard for me to reconcile. I'm in favor of WP:RETENTION, and I'm cognizant that if we allow unpopular views to be expressed, we're going to offend people, and some of them will refuse to remain editors, or will become counterproductive editors (more interested in WP:WINning against their ideological foes here, than they are in improving the encyclopedia). Still, methinks it is far worse to deprecate unpopular views, especially minority ones; that plays into the hands of the conspiracy theorists, and furthermore, messes up our ability to retain NPOV... and worst of all, we have to start qualifying the mission, of being the encyclopedia anyone can edit as long as they believe X and Y and Z and refuse to believe A and B and C. Slippery slope argument, in other words. Feel free to skip the long explanation, it's optional.  :-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If we want to improve WP:RETENTION, by which I mean, flip around the declining active-editor-count trend, and start it rising again (with any luck exponentially rising for a short while would be good), I don't think we can do it by banning unpopular views from being expressed, outside of mainspace. Banning trolls, sure, that is a necessary evil. Is that what you mean by deprecate? Then I'm cool with that, but I think pillar four covers it (and where pillar four misses then pillar five has got our backs). Most of the folks advocating for less this, or more that, seem to be advocating for *more* rules and red tape, not less. Help me understand what you're talking about, please. Best, 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

p.s. You are on Larry's blacklist for saying "founder" my friend.  ;-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I became used, a long time ago, to the white heteronormative supremacists, of course. But, just sometimes, one needs to rattle their cages. It's all based on Floating Voter Theory. Have I mentioned this to you before? If not, ask me to expound, expand, and explain (with use of the Oxford Comma. I find one thing about Wikipedia repulsive, the rest I either agree or disagree with. WHile I detest child abusers I find the policy here of banning anyone who determines that paedophilia, in some cases, does no harm, and expresses that view to be almost as revolting as abusing another human being. I accept that people have the right to earn my personal disapproval by stating that paedophilia is good. I prefer to know who they are, too, in order that I may choose my words well when I interact with them. Today we have driven that matter underground by righteous indignation, and the need to beat our corporate breasts to say how indignant we are.

With regard to homophobia, what I seek to do, is to influence people to be wiser in the way they express unwholesome views in discussions and in redirects such as WP:Fag. Here, I am back to floating voter theory. Fiddle Faddle 11:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Boy you really are repulsed by them thar commas, eh?  :-)   Seriously though, you've probably seen my wall-o-text capacity in action, so don't be too surprised if I've already heard of swing voters, and have my own logical, fascinating WP:OR on the topic. But if that don't scare you off, sure, expound away. Open a new section on my talkpage, if you like, since thataway I'll see the orange bar of doom. Main downside to being an anon, besides caste-system woes, is lack of a normative watchlist -- hetero or otherwise.  ;-)  

  p.s. SPEAKING of knowing who they are being a good thing.... As a known and labeled doorknob, plus as someone who has explicitly expressed the view that in theory if someone else were to express a taboo view about something that could be physical, namely that you might fail to shun them instantly by perma-banning their buttocks, I hereby place you on discretionary wikiCriminality taboo-view-advocacy-by-proxy warning with a status of maximum-high alert! Your refusal to beat your logo-covered chest, is going to get you into trouble someday. <narrows eyes> <performs late-1930s-era salute> <click heels of jackboots together> <abruptly turns and leaves> < martial music fades> <curtain>   Helps, hope I this does, mhhhmmmm. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have availed myself of the opportunity to become lost in all of that! All the floating voter theory is, is the fact that one needs only to sway the undecided in a matter. Those holding entrenched positions are both unimportant and immovable . There are issues, though, in a despotic regime, where the despot and his opinions are handed down to those governed. cf Putin. Fiddle Faddle 10:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

At the request of the author, I've restored International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research, an article you proposed for deletion. I'm notifying you in case you still want to nominate the article for deletion; I'm neutral in the matter. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 11:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I suspect your userfication of the article might have been a better option. I have taken it to AfD for consensus to decide its fate. Fiddle Faddle 11:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Espire infolabs, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: 2nd ref at least is enough for A7. Maybe not survive an AfD though. Not spammy. . Thank you. GedUK  13:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You have no need to template me, you know. The second ref is a Press Release. Our opinions differ, but that is the joy of Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 14:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sir, we are building up the Telexfree article daily and have softened the language to adapt the article to the sources mentioned. I kindly ask to you to revise the Multiple Issues / Cleanup / Notability / Original / Refimprove / To few options tags that you put in it. Also I personally believe that the sources issues have been solved, but fell free to revise the AfD as soon as you can. --Duda100 (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I noted the AfD as withdrawn some time ago. Please be clear that this does not mean that it will be automatically retained, but it signifies to the closing admin that I no longer see the need for deletion.

The other tems, if you have cured them, may be removed by you or anyone else. Fiddle Faddle 11:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok I will remove the terms from the article. Duda100 (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Timtrent, I'm new to wikipedia, but have worked on removing the links duplicates on the article. I think I have resolved the issue. Could you please give it a quick check, and if you see links issues that still need to be addressed, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontiersanders (talk • contribs) 09:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The references exist, methinks, I posted them on PrincessK's page,[3] and left a note on the article-talkpage as well, but Kamen408 -- who posted the linkedin cite after your initial tagging -- may not know to look there for such things. I don't mind putting them in myself, but I'd rather extend the December 11th deadline to January 11th, to give those two folks a shot at rescuing the article. Can the date be extended like that, technically speaking? And if so, do you agree my list verifies WP:N? Gracias. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Regrettably they are not reliable, and they must; be in order to have the BLP notice removed. Your mielage may vary. Fiddle Faddle 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh, these ones, not reliable?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/02/evan-spiegel_n_4201128.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57613694-93/snapchats-evan-spiegel-saying-no-to-$3b-and-feeling-lucky/

http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2013/disruptors/evan-spiegel_bobby-murphy.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/10452668/Snapchats-Evan-Spiegel-Deleting-should-be-the-default.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/20/snapchat-ceo-says-70-of-users-are-women/

http://www.elle.com/news/culture/evan-spiegel-snapchat

Agree the linkedin thing is not RS. In other news, User_talk:Mark_Miller#WP:WER_op-ed, por favor. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, they are indeed reliable as sources, though I have not checked them for relevance. The thing is that they are unpresent in the article :) As the reply to "Lick my balls!" in South Park is so oft quoted, "Pre-sent them!" .

Interesting Op Ed. I find I wonder about editor retention. We could debate To Retain or Not To Retain" except it isn't pentameter. Fiddle Faddle 09:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done, partially. Added the sources to the intro-sentence of Evan_Spiegel, but left the article mostly bare. I'll wait around for PrincessK to show until January or so, and then ping Kamen408 to see if they want to take a crack at expanding the prose. Though considering where areacode 408 is, they might ought to stick to the talkpage, p'raps.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they aren't in the article yet, because I'm kinda hoping PrincessK will want to put them in there, as a guaranteed-successful-first-attempt-after-frying-pan-and-trial-by-fire. But she's still MIA, and as you probably know, if it goes to AfD on the 11th (which is almost here), somebody else will save it. So can the expiration-date be fiddled with, and changed from '13-12-11 into something less numerologically pleasing, further into the future? Despite the tag at the top, we pretty well know the article belongs in mainspace. But I don't want to faddle with your datestamp-fiddle, eh? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It will not head for AfD, you know. On expiry it will simply vanish by admin action at some point. So, if you feel strongly that it is worth saving, add the references (ideally citing something) and remove the PROD. PK? Lady Macbeth. My opinion is that she was here to promote, promote, promote, desppite her "learning" with you. Fiddle Faddle 16:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No, my study of the AfC/NPP/RCP/CVU and CSD/PROD/AfD/AfI systems, and their workflow, is incomplete. Maybe you can fill me in, or help me design a better one? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your insight is correct -- she came here to prove to her friend Betty (or whatever) that she (PK) would be able to get that noteworthy actress a wikipedia page. Mainly, because getting somebody a wikipedia page is a salable skill, nowadays, and PK is starting a business in the film industry. What I taught her is, quite simply, how to properly run exactly that sort of business. The hard way. The honest way. Her friend is not yet Notable... which princessK now groks... but she *is* already Noteworthy, and if PK sticks with it, and has the gumption for the long haul, then someday there *will* be an article on her friend, written by her.

  I'm in favor of that sort of thing. I see it as Betty paying PrincessK to edit the wikipedia talkpage, and then someone -- one of the million active editors I envision -- taking that hard-fact reliably-sourced info, and writing some neutral prose up, which goes in mainspace. That money just improved wikipedia! Is there a risk of corruption, where the 'neutral' editor that converts the sourced info over to mainspace, is also a paid professional? Sure. But no more risk than we *already* have now, today. Anyways, I truly think that PrincessK has what it takes to be a wikipedian, living by the five pillars while she is in the wikiverse, productively and constructively improving it while she is here.

  I'm just not sure that wikipedia has what it takes to make her welcome! I intend[4] to fix that problem, which of course has wider repercussions than just PrincessK. And while we're on the subject, I want a WP:PONY. I earned it! I deserve it! Waaaahhh!  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Timtrent. I just want to let you know that I pinged you here regarding Penbat and the template issues. What are your thoughts on this matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Vladimir_Putin_Lord_of_All_They_Survey has opened a complaint against you, suggesting that you may have just a teensy bit called them a tin-pot despot. Usually I'd try to support your position, but hey, ol' Vlad has a point there. I mean, we all know the creation of the Cyrrilo currency is for the mutual advantage of the eastern bloc satellite countries and their motherland, now don't we? Dosvidanya. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

'brownian noise' ... 'audible sculpture' ... that band from Argentina sounds interesting.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to SORCER may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (TTU)|date=9 July 2007|accessdate=14 December 2013}}</ref>{{Primary-source-inline}}).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Morning Timbo. Just a note that you may be interested in the discussion currently running on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, as I'm not sure if you watchlist that page. The discussion seems to relate to some edits you made, although I could be wrong about that and am too lazy (I often claim "busy") to check.

I'm also someday soon going to get round to replying to your question on my talk page a month or two ago (it got auto-archived fairly recently, sorry about that.) I have lots of opinions on the topic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, they are always appreciated. I've made a contribution to that discussion, and opined for conservative treatment of any and all sexualities. I suppose that should include Baked Goods form that appalling movie!

On the other topic I will be interested to discuss any and all opinions with you when you are ready. I don't guarantee to agree with you, but I will enjoy sharing my thoughts. As I recall, the gentleman I was worried about has turned out to be part of a multi faceted sock drawer. Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Smauritius_disruption. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Additionally I am not to be referred to as 'Dude'. ([5])

Tim, do you know how to create userboxes? If so, and if you want to create one that says something like "this user does not appreciate being called Dude, I might put it on my user page. BTW, my antipathy for the word has nothing to do with gender. I just hate it, and, unfortunately, at present, it's ubiquitous, at least in the States.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done See User:Timtrent/Userboxen/Not_Dude, and feel free to improve it if you can and wish. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That was fast! I'd rather make suggestions rather than directly edit it: (1) wikilink Dude; (2) don't put Dude in quotes and put a period at the end of it; and (3) change "Not now, not ever, never!" to "Not now, not ever." (no exclamation point). More (weaker) suggestions: (1) Change the NO on the left to STOP; and (2) change the colors. Of course, I could just grab your code and try to change it myself to suit my own taste, but I kinda enjoy being the user and you being the programmer. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Not now, not ever, never! is a quote from somewhere, but I have discovered it was from the Andy WIlliams Show! So I yield. DOne a couple of tweaks to the code I don't understand at all! I copied it from another one naturally! Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

We can watch my editing progress here

Giggles Fiddle Faddle 17:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Salvatore Rivieri also took strong exception to the term, as depicted in this YouTube video. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hehe, programming is all about cloning anyway. I like the new version much better. What about the word "not"? Looks like something out of a law review article footnote. BTW, do you know that a doctor called me dude? Sometimes, he'd call me Mr. X and other times dude - very odd juxtaposition. Then, to top it all off, he sounded exactly like the dog walker character played by Hank Azaria on Mad About You if you've ever seen that show (the doctor hadn't).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That video made it to this side of the Atlantic. I see it took a while for the officer to be fired. Good riddaance!

A doctor called you 'dude'? Good lord. And again, good lord!

BTW I have asked a Wikifriend to have a poke about with the userbox to empretty it. It could probably do with minor ensmallening, too Fiddle Faddle 17:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Never occurred to me to take away the doctor's skateboardstethoscope and put him in a headlock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if stethoscope suppositories exist? Or will we have to make do with the inuendo? The headlock woudl make application easier. Fiddle Faddle 18:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Duuude, that userbox is so totally awesome.... <ducks> — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

See, that has sufficient letters 'u' in it! Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This debate can be split into multiple portions, addressing the individual castes in question, or can be a free-for-all.

1. Should the number of arbcom seats be allocated based on some kind of census? twelve arbs for 30k active editors means the ratio is 2500-to-1 or thereabouts... which helps explain why arbcom insta-declines almost every case. maybe we need a circuit court system, or a grand jury process?
2. Should wikipedia retain the existing ~630 active admins, each performing at least 15+edits/mo? cf Kudpung's oft-mentioned anti-admin-cabal, and WeirSpiegelChequier's data on steady downward RfA trend since 2010
3. Should wikipedia retain the existing ~800 less-active admins, each performing fewer than 15+edits/mo? cf perennial call for re-RfA-election every two years, plus recent auto-desysop-if-you-go-dormant-for-a-year rulz
4. Should wikipedia strive to re-acquire former admins (count unknown) who have been retired/banned/dormantAndDesysop'd? cf Dennis Brown, founder of WP:RETENTION, and the morning277 slash wiki-PR troubles
5. Should wikipedia strive to increase the raw number of admins, from 30k-to-630 which is a ratio of 50 active editors per admin, to something like 6000 admins aka 5-to-1 ratio? cf "Adminship is No Big Deal"
6. If so, should the tools be split up, and specifically, how? cf Eric Corbett, who asserts that splitting the tools is both easy and necessary, versus Kudpung, who says splitting the tools is inherently impossible to do

Most of the admin-related questions cannot be fully addressed, until we first get to the meat of the broader retention-question, about everyday editors.

  But there is a question that needs to be settled first, before we talk about specific *ways* to try and grow the number of Good Eggs, whilst simultaneously keeping out the Bad Eggs of various sorts during the growth-period. Namely: is net retention good for wikipedia? I argue that it is, as long as we retain largely Good Eggs. Perhaps you will argue that sorting Good Eggs from the Bad Eggs is too hard? Or perhaps you will argue that too many Good Eggs will overburden wikipedia's servers or social system or whatever, and cause unintended side-effects which result in more harm than good? Or possibly, something completely different™ will be the basis of your argument. I'm curious to see what you think ought to be done, and very curious, if you should disagree that striving for net-increase-in-retention (of Good Eggs) is indubitably a good thing, what reasons you will give. Feel free to reply briefly, or at length.

---

So many questions, so I choose a break rather than an indent. I'm funny that way and I get too few chances to use them.

On the subject of perfection of initial entries, I have mixed views, and they depend on the quality of the item submitted. I confess that I patrol new pages and nominate a good number for deletion. Some months I find more crap than others. I use the methods as follows:

I try very hard to reserve this for obvious stuff that has no place here. I recognise that it is a slap for a new editor, but I also consider that some new editors require slapping for the abundantly appalling quality of the tat that they wish to become an article. Still others are immediate vandals. See User:Timtrent/CSD_log

I use this to try very hard to comment favourably on the route forward for an article. User:Timtrent/PROD_log captures the reasons. As you see, many, many of those articles remain. My opinion is that crap that can be improved that I do not wish to improve myself, can be better improved with a time limit.

I use this in a way that is by no means always conventional. It allows publicity to a group of editors, some of whom will even improve the article, and they are quite often retained.

---

I have an entirely ambivalent view towards new editors, increasing editors, decreasing editors. I don't mind how many or how few folk edit this thing. It's a little like the rationale given for why multi-levl marketing will never 'employ' the whole world. Some folk want to do it, some folk don't. I care, instead, that those who are genuine contributors get thrown away. The User:Fae saga was pointless. Fae got carried waway a bit and then got pilloried. Lunch law, in my view. Fae was eaten for lunch. There is institutionalised homophobia here, it;s just that those who exhibot it are in the majority. Well, who would ever have expected that? Me? I try to counter it, but not at the expense of self sacrifice or even of becoming emotionally involved. Have a look at Meta:Requests_for_deletion#Friends_of_gays_should_not_be_allowed_to_edit_articles for my attempt at removal of something that has no place, certainly in that venue. Then look at the other attempts to delete it. Consoder the different qualities of argument over the different attempts (find them here: Meta:Talk:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. I claim a smidgen of the responsibility for the better arguments this time around. Of course the first time, in 2007, went as expected. 2008 went poorly, too, with no thought. 2013, now that is a fish of a very different colour.

So I mind hugely when people are driven off by the posse. I don't mind when a person wholly incompetent to edit in English has to leave, but they may communicate as poorly as they like, provided their work in articles is decipehrable.

I mind a lot when the less brain cell endowed think this is their private web site to promote themselves and their favourite Bollywood actor, and, paradoxically, I have no objection at all to honest paid editing. The former may leave yesterday and, for me, the latter may stay and improve this edifice.

As for admins, some are appalling and need to be slung out, others excellent. Some of the best have opinions I disagree with. They explain their deliberations well enough for me to understand why we differ. Arbcom is like our local Town Council. I have rarely seen so many individually intelligent people lose that intelligence en masse. I wonder whether we need and deserve a benign dictatorship rather than a committee elected by a tiny minority. And yes, I voted.

I am now in danger of rambling. Fiddle Faddle 19:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(( much appreciated, still working on my reply-ramble... and will note for the record that *I* came up with an alternative title, of sorts, which is waaaay funnier than "the five types of vandals" bbbooooorrrrring idea that PiRSquared17 suggested ... ooh, burn!  :-)   Also, request of my friend the fiddler that a third note for PK be sent, cause apologia is optional, my goal was 99% purely to write the lessons for my own survival manual (see WP:WER talkpage archive) and encourage future members of the 1000-new-editors-this-month-club, and that goal was 100% satisfied ... if PK returns I shall be quite glad, but considering the wikiTrauma she underwent, and all the gumption it took just for her to finally be in a position to hope to accomplish the stated *mission* of this place, the encyclopedia *anyone* can edit, I would be not at all surprised if she were never to login as that uid again, due to predictable wikiStress. Ain't no WP:FUN anymore, in other words. See also Professor from Poland, see also Pratham of NRJS school, see also anybody that starts their wikiverse time with their talkpage snowing template-spam they don't really grok and their work evaporating into the history-logs before their eyes ... my long reply, which makes your brief terse ramble look like a cakewalk btw, covers the solution I am promoting in some detail, though I'm trying hard to avoid gory levels of detail.

  Specifically, don't worry a whit about me needing boost to my ego, I'm so sure of myself, so confident I'm right, and so willing to broaden my shoulders that I'll go against all seven billion humans should I decide they are incorrect, plus any sentient aliens that wanna act contrary to my impeccable logical reasoning.  :-)   You vulcans got nothing, you hear? That's right. Anyhoo, Tim the enchanter, you are not doing anything *bad* or even *improper* and in fact you are doing *great* in my book, across the board. I'll further butter up your ego, and lessen the load on your broad wiki-shoulders, by saying that you keep getting the deletion-calls totally right. But my impeccably logical and reasonable advice... see how I pulled *that* fast one? I am soooo super-sneaky! Wooo! ...is to simply not *call* a spade a spade, even though it is bloody glaringly obvious/blatant/etc, because the spade rarely looks in the mirror after all, and the transition from digging a hole to reflecting self-referentially is a rough one sometimes. Informing the spade is counterproductive, is my point here. *I* want you to call a spade a spade when wiki-speaking with me, and in the real-o-verse make it a point to do that (call a spade a spade) myself habitually, but in the text-only wikiverse I try to restrain myself from doing that, and instead beat around the bush. This is inefficient, using one stone per bird, but it allows me to take out the wimpy flittering one before I gently euthanize the big vulture behind it. Maybe your gentle prodding will help PK draw on her gumption-reserves, and return to improve the place with her new-found wiki-jutsu. But she might interpret your shakespeare the wrong way, it's not impolite, but I would say impolitic.

  Soften it up, I say. Go compliment how well her gown matches with her crown, or her recently-much-wiser commentary. WP:REQUIRED applies, of course, skip it if you wanna, but remember that it also applies to others, who cares about sorry this sorry that, blocks are preventative against *future* behavior, not guilt inducing mechanisms about past behavior which would be punitive. Well... that's the theory at least. User:Secret acted 100% fine in this case, as did the unblocking admins, as did you of course, and myself totally. See above, I *always* act impec... oh nevermind.  :-)   But there have definitely been blocks I have seen recently, real or threatened, which were clearly by WP:INVOLVED admins who shoulda coulda known better, but got out the banhammer personally, when they ought to have called in an uninvolved admin to get a second opinion. See also the saga of Kazfiel, which Yngvadottir linked on my talkpage, where WP:IAR was beautifully deployed... breaking a bureacratic logjam, pleasing editors who got their work promoted to mainspace, and ending with a super noticeboard precedent for my not-a-cabal work. The downside was, Kafziel was thinking more highly of the content, than of the editors behind the content. They deleted some things from the AfC queue, on presumption that those things would *never* belong in mainspace. WP:BITE. Even if they were 100% correct on every article they deleted, if they drove away a contributor who someday *would* have produced actual improvements to mainspace, years and years of improvements, Kazfiel's action was a net short-term-gain, but simultaneously a net long-term-loss. Same metaphor applies with NPP work in mainspace, methinks.

  Anyhoo, since we kinda know each other now, and since I kinda have an idea of how thick your skin is, I'm calling a spade a spade here, and saying that you are calling a spade a spade with beginners, without first beating around the bush a bit, and without softening it with compliments. This is more efficient in the short run, but bad for retention in the long run. And yes, dammit, I know I still have to convince you retention is actually the key.  :-)   I'm-a working on it, truly I am. In the meantime, feel free to tell me to piss off, cause you can keep doing exactly as you are doing, and I won't be hurt-feeling'd the slightest bit, I'll be *glad* in fact, because you're improving wikipedia with your current modus operandi. Do as you will, SRSLY. p.s. This prolly belongs in another section, but I would like to retroactively discuss who won arbcom, and why, and so on. HTH, danke4improve, ta ta for now. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC) ))

(( sigh... still writing on this. <grin> )) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Should 199.190.46.111/WIN7BOOT Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amaravathiarun not Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redbranch1984? DMacks (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@DMacks: good catch. Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent, I'll do this one, even though I think WP:Cleanup is probably the best venue for this kind of request—alternatively using the {{copy-edit|date}} template will add this to our backlog. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate all elements of your message. Fiddle Faddle 19:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978: Good job well done :) WIth good luck and a following wind the folk who created it will enjoy the excellent work you have done. Fiddle Faddle 21:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tim; well it's not an article for its subject company to be proud of! :-) Re: my earlier comments, I'm just trying to avoid the GOCE requests page being used as an alternative to Cleanup; it's really there to polish articles before GA/FA reviews, etc. I'm sure you've seen the sort of cr*p some people expect us to deal with (content-building, refs checking, fixing poor translations etc); if not, a glance at the talk page will amaze you. ;-) Still, Telexfree was good therapy; I usually enjoy ripping into that kind of thing! :-) Thanks for helping fix the 'peadia anyway; it needs all the help it can get. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand completely. Oddly, I suspect one could get at least a DYK from that article, possibly an ironic GA! The therapy of taking poor stuff down and replacing it with the good is well worth doing! When I can see the wood from the trees I do it myself, if only to see what is left! Fiddle Faddle 09:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@Baffle gab1978:I'm not the creator of the article, but have been helping editing it, and I personally thank you and Timtrent for the help provided! The article had a make over for sure! THANKS!!!--Frontiersanders (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

WIkipedia at its best is perfect strangers coming together to produce something worthwhile. But it has a dark side, too. As long as you always remember that the only thing to take personally on WIkipedia is praise you will enjoy playing here. Than you for your praise, some of which I deserve. Fiddle Faddle 11:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Soham (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Portion of the talkpage notice for HMSSolent, emphasis mine.

... Threats to send me/another editor to a court of law in Trenton, NJ, ALL CAPS SCREAMING comments and kidnapping schemes that do not help in building an encyclopaedia will be promptly removed. ...

I'm trying hard to come up with a kidnapping scheme, that *would* help in building an encyclopedia, so I can suggest it. Ve haf vays uf making-nk yoo cite your sources Doktor Jones! 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Love it! Hmm, wasn't Jones part of the 9/11 conspiracy brouhaha? Fiddle Faddle 19:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of Indiana Jones who often battled nazis with bad accents; maybe you are thinking of Terry Jones the 2012 presidential candidate? They complained a lot about the 9/11 mosque, if memory serves. Luckily for me, I never edited their article, so I don't actually know if that Jones also believed that the twin towers fell due to explosives planted by black-ops secret agent provocateurs, as well. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"Our rigour is to delete things (or not to allow things to be created) when RS is absent." Fully agree. And fully want to retain the rigor, or the rigour, or however the article in question spelt or spelled the concept in the good old days of 2007. But we have to change the culture, so that instead of deleting (adversarial) and not-allowing (adversarial), we instead start concentrating on winning by yielding. SORCER should have immediately-upon-mainspace-creation been shifted into the AfC queue (not CSD), with a big tag at the top, "articles for improvement". Then, somebody diplomatic (better than myself if at all possible since my diplomacy-fu is actually quite weak) should have been called in, one diplomat *per* COI editor, maybe two for the professor, to train them in the ropes.

  Next, instead of edit-warring about the content, and trying to clean the infomercial from mainspace, and remove the jargon which will only befuddle or razzle-dazzle or confuse readers, we could have concentrated on the sources. Who cares what the prose looks like, infomercial or simply TBD-placeholders, in the AfC queue, right? No MOS in AfC, either.

  Figuring out which sources were the ironwood, and which were the balsawood, specifically. Instead of saying WP:BURDEN, you stupid PhD COI spam socks do all the work, we could have sic'd some beginners with wikithuisiasm out the ears on the task. Everybody thinks that is a great idea... Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Adding_references_to_articles_as_a_method_of_retaining_editors ... but where is the redacted redacted redacted gumption to *implement* such an idea in practice?

  Finally, deciding *after* we have found and catalogued and categorized and verified all the sources, based on the ones that survived, and the topics that survived with them as WP:N, how *many* articles to actually create in mainspace... one on Mike Sobolewski, one on Air Force Research Lab, one on SORCER, one on exertion oriented programming, one on federated method invocation, one on service-oriented OMG architecture, and so on. Maybe they are best combined into a single article? Maybe there is only enough truly independent sourcing as of Dec'13 to justify a single mainspace article? Maybe there is not even that, and the content should remain in the AfC queue for another six months, while we wait for more cites.

  But therein lies the key... "we" needs to be, you and prof and me and kamuzo and trpod and pawel and martijn and beaver. All of us... not the TRUE wikipedians versus the evil beginners that righteously feel they have been shafted by The Man. Right now, the way wikiculture works, it is an instant WP:BATTLEGROUND, emerging in *ever* similar situation, with trpod deleting everything they write, and you complaining their sources in mainspace are "not good enough" (which is true... but only by a very specific wiki-definition of 'good' which as beginning editors they obviously don't know), and Martijn declining their AfC submissions. Plus me posting huge WP:WALLOFTEXT novellas, that rarely help. Nobody is acting badly... everybody on "our" team is following policy. Everybody on "their" team is acting in good faith (and ditto for our team!).

  But it is still the shaft. Prof/pawel/beaver/kamuzo, when they look at similar articles, see *none* of the accusatory snark-tags at the top, if *those* crappy articles are good enough for mainspace, why is *their* work somehow sub-standard? Yes. I know. WP:OSE. WP:BURDEN. But those, while they are exemplary explanations of how wikiculture works nowadays, are violations of WP:IAR, because they drive away good-faith contributors, even faster than they drive away visigoths. In fact, the visigoths remain... they have an ongoing financial interest, or an ongoing thrill of LULZ, after all. So in effect, WP:OSE and WP:BURDEN end up *only* driving away good-faith contributors. Life is not always fair, but we need to improve wikipedia so it is *perceived* as more fair.

  Today, editing wikipedia requires heroic efforts, on the order of test pilots in project Mercury. That's the opposite of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Anyhoo, I wish plaintext conveyed tone better. Do you understand what I'm complaining about, and that you personally, nor your exemplary behavior, are my complaint? I like you.  :-)   I'm just trying to figure out how we can have our cake, and eat it, too. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

WIth the embryo Draft: namespace about to surface, now is the time. The D of most of the D process could be DRAFT not DELETE. Go for it.

That way crap is filtered, and real articles are developed in a decent manner.

However I do maintain that anyone can edit Wikipedia. I do, you do, they do. Fiddle Faddle 20:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No. "The encyclopedia *anyone* can edit" has a natural meaning, and wikipedia of 2013 has a caste-system designed and built to prevent that natural meaning from being true. You and I, quite frankly, are redacted abnormal. I say that with the highest respect. WP:WikiSpeak#WADR ... argh ... where is the humor quotient when I cannot remember the link to WP:WikiSpeak#collaborate the first time round? . Some of the wizards obviously have the same abnormality... but note that kamuzo, beaver, and mike have all given up and quit, at least once. That ain't because we were mean to them; it's because they perceived unfairness. That's the key problem here. I'm not trying to make life fair; I'm trying to make life *seem* fair.  :-)   74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Deletion_and_Draft:. The floor is yours. Fiddle Faddle 21:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Prolly the floor is mine... so that the WMF can use me to wipe it.  ;-)   I doubt they will see eye to eye here. But yes, I would be just as happy if articles were shoved into draft-namespace, rather than AfC-queue, as long as it is a *unified* place where all articles needing improvement — so badly that they cannot be mainspace... yet — are sent. If the draft-namespace is just a euphemism for deleted-namespace, then it is not an improvement in culture, it is just a cover-up to pretend we are helping them, rather than sending them to the graveyard. Anyways, I cannot present my case, at present, my damned case is not fully written down yet, doorrrrknnnoobbb.  :-)   Still, never hurts rattling the cages, I suppose. p.s. Speaking of which... sigh... I'm in Kafziel and Barleybannocks ahrbcohm drahmahz right now. If the stray bullet from The Man take me down, keep up the good fight, use pillar five as the shield of Athena, and use pillar four as your sword of compulsion, and pillar three is your, umm, papyrus of the encoding of freedom, or something... aaarrhgh, I'm quiting this metaphor while I'm ahead! When is a door not a door? p.p.s. You are free to post snippets of what I *have* written already, if you think it will help, over at your drafts-talkpage discussion... see also Yngvadottir, who knows most of my sekret skheme to unify the wikiverse. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a robust view of alleged disciplinary processes. I have, when accused of things in the past, used the post "I will let my edit record speak for itself. Stating this is the sole part I will take in these proceedings." Fiddle Faddle 13:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It just takes one live wire to push a rope uphill.[6] Yes, yes, I know the thing about the scoutmasters, sorry, people suck. Also, I know the thing about 1812, and 1783, life isn't fair. As per above (now with *actual* hyperlink to teh humourz rather than a null set), the goal here is just the perception of fairness. Worthwhile: WP:CGTW. WP:OGTW is arguably more richly black, though. At least *one* good thing came from dramahz; never would have run across those pair, otherwise. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Reading is a matter of moving your eyes over a page and seeing the words there before you type. Can you do it? I think you can. Now go back to the Martha Nell Smith talk page and read from top to bottom. You'll see that someone is trying to move things forward and a whole bunch of you are warring instead.207.207.21.83 (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is unimportant to me. Good behaviour is, and you are exhibiting rudeness instead. I have noticed a few nuclear bombs on the talk page, and people up in arms, but no constructive discussion. Take it steadily and calmly and deal with things in a sequential manner and you are much more likely to be successful.

Just to be clear, I don't know or care who Martha Nell Smith is, nor am I at all interested in her field, not have I any interest in editing that article. I do care about people whose sole offering here is bullying and bluster, though. Please revise your attitude. You may even find you enjoy the place after you do. Fiddle Faddle 18:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Your acknowledged ignorance and indifference is appalling. I see why now Wikipedia is going in the toilet. http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ You disparage experts and do not read. Yours is the attitude that requires revision. Many hours were spent revising; all of that work has been deleted. Imagine that if you will.207.207.21.205 (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you an expert, then? Please go away unless you can be civil. Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am an expert in 19th C women's poetry and Dickinson specifically. Martha Nell Smith is important to the field and what you are doing to her page and talk page shows appalling ignorance. You have bureaucratic power, yes, but you have no knowledge. 64.9.156.14 (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC) I wish you could see that your behavior and your fellow deleters can be perceived as "rude" to experts.64.9.156.14 (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

So you are hopping between 702.207.21.205 and 64.9.156.14 are you? Ah well. Now listen up, and listen good, expert one. You have just as much and just as little clout here as any other editor. Your credentials are as useless here as mine. You are here for a fight as far as I can tell. It doesn't matter who you are, you are the same as the least of us, which is the same as all of us. If you can't cope with the alleged wisdom of crowds you ought not to be here. If you have a case to argue then argue it well, with discipline, with politeness and in the right place.

As for "doing something" to a biography page, the only thing people are doing is insisting upon pedantic correctness, not opinion. There are rules here just as I presume. there are in your work. Obey them and work well here, or fight them and fail. The choice is very simple. The system will never change for you, so you need to change for it. Fiddle Faddle 20:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

There are several of us, editing anonymously because of people like you. Let the experts speak please. 216.166.10.205 (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You have been told how to speak, and where to speak, and what your methodology should be to make your point. And all you do is to bully and hector. This behaviour devalues your arguments. It impresses no-one. It is the behaviour of the schoolyard bully. All you appear to be able to do is to attack and style yourself as some sort of expert. You ought to be aware now that WIkipedia is uninterested in your alleged expertise. Fiddle Faddle 20:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring multiple instances of rudeness, I have now set up a proper discussion. This is called a Request for Comment on the article's talk page and brings a lot more eyes than just your own (I suspect you of being one person, IP hopping, after all. A load of the links you allege to be resources are dead links. It;s a shame you did not bring rigour to your self styled expertise, really. One would expect rigour from a real expert. Please feel free to fill my talk page with venom, but be aware that there are administrators who will block you for doing do. Fiddle Faddle 23:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Me? I'm going to have Christmas. I hope yours is fun and filled with silly games. Fiddle Faddle 23:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Pratyya ^(Hello!) 05:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The article Laura Figueroa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability and no independent references - the only people of this name in reliable sources thrown up by a Google search are an actress and a lawyer. Furthermore, the article appears to have been created at the request of the subject - see [7]. who has herself contributed to the content

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deb (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laura_Figueroa, Mishae has claimed that you support his view that this person is notable. It would be useful if you could confirm or reject that view. Deb (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit I was totally confused by the fact that your name is not the same as your name, if you see what I mean. On the notability question, I completely agree with your comments, except that there is as yet no evidence whatsoever for LF's notability and she appears to have bamboozled Mishae into creating an article about her without providing anything to back it up. Deb (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

When I signed up for this bizarre social experiment all those years ago I was sure I could use a nickname, so used my real name. It then appeared that I could use a nickname, but "not really", so I am "not really here" . My main conclusion is that MediaWiki software sucks :). With regard to Laura F, it's a technical sort of keep and a real life don't care. :) Fiddle Faddle 13:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent, Happy New Year! It was good to meet you in 2013; I hope we get to interact further in 2013. :) Best. Acalamari 12:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Good morning,

I understand your frustration (I've been there several times myself), but you might want to turn it down a notch at AfD. You're nowhere close to being uncivil, but your irritation is showing. Remember, you're not writing to convince the authors of the article; you're writing to convince the closing admin. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know—just consider this a gentle reminder. (And thanks for the patience you've displayed up to this point.) Garamond Lethet
c 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Point well made and well taken. Fiddle Faddle 18:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)