User talk:Avanu/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
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!
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 Wikipedia 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) 12:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
By changing the phrase to "known for ... strong emphasis on personal health and fitness", you are creating an unsupported statement in the lead of the article. The article text supports that he is "known for" participating in triathlons. Please provide a reference supporting your version of the statement. Otherwise, you are synthesizing. Yworo (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I would make a very strong case that the way you have it now is much more a 'sin' as well as 'synth', because it truly neglects the sources. Not to mention, as I said in my edit summary, it is poorly written and has a pageant-type feel, as if someone read a tiny bit of his biography and tried to clip two bits from it and make him sound well rounded. I actually went and read the sources before I made the change. For example: http://extras.denverpost.com/news/profile0515.htm and http://www.economist.com/node/320937
- You say "The article text supports that he is 'known for' participating in triathlons", but looking at these news sources about how fit and bold he is, only the first one mentions triathlons, and it is only ONE mention. Both articles spend a lot more text talking about all the physically demanding things he does apart from 'normal' people. The guy isn't just known for triathlons (if that is even one of his signature things, he is known for a LOT of things. In addition, we're not talking about some text in the middle of the Wikipedia article, we're talking about the lead. This is a summary area. It is a place that calls for condensing and summarizing what the sources have said. While I am still not entirely satisfied with my change to "strong emphasis on personal health and fitness", it is without a doubt more faithful to the representation by sources, and a better summary of the man than the lead was doing. Despite all of this, I would challenge you back to show a preponderance of sources that show his signature achievements as 'being a governor' and 'regular participation in triathlons'. Considering how the sources talk about him, I doubt this is a fair characterization of the man. -- Avanu (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit war warnings
If you think there is an edit war, may I ask why you're warning just me and not the other person? - Balph Eubank ✉ 17:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Removing the whole section
His comments are notable. We can work on how best to include it in a NPOV manner. Casprings (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, BLP first, Casprings. Work on making a high-quality, well-thought-out wording before just tossing junk back in. -- Avanu (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Chill, we've done our part
Your talking to the wall at AN3. He's looking to derail the report, and he isn't going to listen to reason. It's probably best to just let the diffs speak for themselves (and they say enough, really), and let him talk to the interwebs by himself it that makes him happy. Belchfire-TALK 05:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent example of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Thanks! StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely. It's always indicative of battleground behavior when one tries to get editors to disengage from an ongoing disagreement.
Facepalm Belchfire-TALK 05:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, actually, you were mostly just trying to get them blocked, but I guess that it counts as a type of disengagement. Sadly, it's a type that's entirely consistent with WP:BATTLEGROUND.StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- StillStanding-247, the goal is consensus and collaboration. Get a clue on what that means or don't comment. I'm fully on your side if you are truly being oppressed, but you've expended a lot of our good will fighting endless, pointless fights. Don't do it anymore. Battlegrounds are not the goal, and now that the article is locked, we can actually discuss the content instead of fighting over it. -- Avanu (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Then you should have asked for page protection, not blocks. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely. It's always indicative of battleground behavior when one tries to get editors to disengage from an ongoing disagreement.
Abuse of 'minor' indicium, false claims of vandalism, edit-warring
This edit is guilty of all of the above. It is not reverting vandalism ok to revert with no comment, as one might do for vandalism, the change is not minor, and it constitutes edit-warring. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is no claims of vandalism that I can see, but yes, it shouldn't be marked minor. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- He didn't use the word "vandalism", but he did use the default comment that's normally reserved only for vandalism. Along with the Minor designation,
he was clearly implying vandalism where none existed.I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)- I tend to agree with IRWolfie that there were no "false claims of vandalism". I'd also be careful of accusing somebody of "edit-warring" when they have only made one revert. (Avanu's last edit to the article was 12 days ago.) The main problem I see with the edit is the use of the "minor" tag, and that's a relatively minor issue :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- It turns out that participating in an edit war, even with a single revert, can be considered edit-warring.
Likewise, reverting without a stated reason is an idiom for vandalism.I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)- I guess it depends on your definition of edit war. When Avanu made his revert there had only been a single prior revert. The actual edit war (IMO) happened later on, and Avanu did not participate in that. Either way, what's done is done. I still suggest you refactor your comment above as a gesture of good faith. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- It turns out that participating in an edit war, even with a single revert, can be considered edit-warring.
- I used rollback. @Still, as someone who regularly speaks about having been falsely accused, you might do better at moderating your tone. I plan to remove this section as soon as I get to a proper computer, because honestly I could almost not care less about the argument. -- Avanu (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- You are free to remove it, but the message has been delivered. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with IRWolfie that there were no "false claims of vandalism". I'd also be careful of accusing somebody of "edit-warring" when they have only made one revert. (Avanu's last edit to the article was 12 days ago.) The main problem I see with the edit is the use of the "minor" tag, and that's a relatively minor issue :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- He didn't use the word "vandalism", but he did use the default comment that's normally reserved only for vandalism. Along with the Minor designation,
As a side point—I rushed here when I saw this section title come up on my watchlist, because I saw "abuse of minor" and I wanted to make sure as an oversighter and arbitrator that we didn't have a child-protection issue. Next time please write "minor edits" instead. :) Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion was archived by User:Y256, and later un-archived by User:Adjwilley.
- I won't comment again on this archived discussion...but please look again at what rollback is intended to be used for. Were you using it to revert vandalism, edits to your own user space, your own edits, edits made by banned users, or widespread edits by a user or bot? No? Then that's not what rollback is for. Take the extra 15 seconds and give a proper edit summary. --Onorem♠Dil 20:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Brad, sorry about that. I didn't realize how it might look. From now on, it's "minor edit".
- Adjwilley, I don't believe I said anything that was genuinely a personal attack, else I would not have said it. Still, if not for the archiving, I would have been willing to slash out my words, as a courtesy and to avoid needless drama. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- @StillStanding, I know it wasn't intended as a personal attack, so no worries there. I've undone the archiving so you can strike and refactor your comments if you so desire. Avanu should probably be the one to mark the discussion as closed anyway, though Y256's intentions were golden. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I went ahead and refactored. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- (Now that I am back at a real computer...) I made the mistake of looking at the edit of that IP Address as a bit of vandalistic editing. The IP reverted Naaple with "get consensus of talk". Naapple had written: "Tax returns: This never should've been put in. The result was delete, not merge. Section restored and now material can be put in." After reviewing the the Talk and seeing that a consensus of "Delete" was mentioned ("The result of that debate was delete, not merge"), Naaple's edit seemed to be a valid edit, I just hit rollback without reviewing too much more. I very very rarely use rollback, except by accident when the iPhone makes me mess up. Although Still may be technically accurate about my action here, I think his approach lacks a bit of finesse, since rather than ask me about it, he made a very declarative statement. Anyway, felt like I needed to give a full response before I pulled this thread. -- Avanu (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- @StillStanding, I know it wasn't intended as a personal attack, so no worries there. I've undone the archiving so you can strike and refactor your comments if you so desire. Avanu should probably be the one to mark the discussion as closed anyway, though Y256's intentions were golden. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
AFD: "Delete per nom," "Keep per EditorFoo"
I removed your addition to the AFD instructions which said "'Me too' votes do not provide additional material for a thoughtful resolution, and editors should be encouraged to refactor these into an actual argument." Such !=votes have long been included in AFDs. I looked on the talk page and found no discussion arriving at a consensus for your proposal to "encourage" such editors to "refactor " their Keep or Delete into an "actual argument. I see in the proposal the likelihood of AFD contributors being harassed and told their "Keep per" or "Delete per" is to be ignored by the closer. In fact, maybe the nominator exhaustively researched the nomination of a biography and conclusively proved it was a hoax, and gave an ironclad basis for deletion. Or perhaps a contributor found dozens of articles about something with significant coverage, and showed that the topic is taught in colleges and included in textbooks. A subsequent AFD participant may conclude that the case has been proved and argued by the prior contributor. This point has been made in the archives of the AFD talk page, and did not seem all that controversial. Like you, I sometimes find it annoying when someone just uses "per," but there are cases where it is valid. If you still want to pursue this, then launch a discussion on the talk page of the AFD page. Regards. Edison (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'll probably do that. I did this because I was at an AfD just today where UserA said "Delete per UserX, UserY, UserZ" and another editor right below them said "Delete per UserA". The logic was just nuts to me that one user was referring to *another* user, who referred to several other users. In other words, nothing of real substance was being added to the debate, and there was no way to know what their feelings were on the issues. -- Avanu (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- (EC)Please do not just hit the revert button again as you did here. Go to the AFD talk page and seek a consensus to deprecate the "Per Foo" inputs, or to justify harassing the editors who post them. They have long been a part of AFD. I agree that I prefer a good rationale, but you are not entitled to revise the AFD rules based solely on your preferences, when 2 other editors have removed your new text. Please read the essay WP:BRD. Regards Edison (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- In a recent AFD you called others or their comments "lazy" and "lame," for posting "Per Foo" inputs. That is the sort of commentary which your new proposed text would encourage and justify. If "Per Foo" is no longer allowed in AFD, I would like it to be because there is a consensus for such an exclusion of "jump on the bandwagon" input. Edison (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- What it would do is encourage people who show up at an AfD debate to actually participate, rather than casually referencing 'what he said' as their response. The thing that incensed me was one editor referring to another editor's comment, which was itself just a reference to others' comments. UserB says "Keep per UserA". UserC says "Keep per UserB". What have either of these editors added to the AfD debate? Pretty much zero, and to actually understand what they supposedly believe in, I have to follow a trail of crumbs back to UserA. "Per Foo" responses are lazy, and since Admins are supposed to ignore "votes" and concentrate on arguments, a case could easily be made that such additions are merely disruptive editing in the sense that they distract from "reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments". -- Avanu (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- The "Per Foo" votes won't get a lot of weight by the closing admin so it's unnecessary to be uncivil. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how we would prove or disprove that. But I imagine if we embarked on a long review of old consensus arguments, we would see quite a few examples where good arguments were ignored in favor of the din of many voices. How significant would it be? Who can say without research. I do contend that it is a lack of diligence that permits such 'votes'. -- Avanu (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- The "Per Foo" votes won't get a lot of weight by the closing admin so it's unnecessary to be uncivil. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- What it would do is encourage people who show up at an AfD debate to actually participate, rather than casually referencing 'what he said' as their response. The thing that incensed me was one editor referring to another editor's comment, which was itself just a reference to others' comments. UserB says "Keep per UserA". UserC says "Keep per UserB". What have either of these editors added to the AfD debate? Pretty much zero, and to actually understand what they supposedly believe in, I have to follow a trail of crumbs back to UserA. "Per Foo" responses are lazy, and since Admins are supposed to ignore "votes" and concentrate on arguments, a case could easily be made that such additions are merely disruptive editing in the sense that they distract from "reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments". -- Avanu (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
August 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JOJ Hutton 20:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Attacks are not legitimate comments. Please take a look at the Talk page guidelines for yourself. I don't particularly care if it irritates those who attack others in a debate. Personal attacks and threats should not persist in a debate, and people following policy won't have to worry about their comments being refactored. -- Avanu (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JOJ Hutton 20:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I direct you to the explanation at User talk:Jojhutton#Talk Page Guidelines. Again, personal attacks and threats are not "legitimate talk page comments". If you re-add these attacks again, we'll be having this discussion with the admins at AN/I. -- Avanu (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is your opinion that the comment was an "attack". If your feeling was that the comment was an attack, your first response should have been to ask the editor to remove or rephrase the comment, and not to take it upon yourself to remove it.--JOJ Hutton 20:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- The comment by Arzel actually contains more than just the attack, and had two responses. This is the type of thing that is typically collapsed, because it is off-topic, and if Arzel wished to refactor, that would have been fine. Little green rosetta's comment contained nothing but an attack, and had no responses, so it was in the best interest of the debate for it to simply not be present.
- Repeatedly telling someone in an open RfC to "drop a stick" or they'll get a block is by no means simply my opinion of a threat. It is completely and clearly a threat. 'Do what I say, or else'. Their main problem with Still is a disagreement over content, not conduct. If an admin is needed to close a frivolous RfC, then that should happen. Personal threats do not advance a debate. -- Avanu (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Per WP:TPO, Reasons for removal: Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.--JOJ Hutton 21:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is your opinion that the comment was an "attack". If your feeling was that the comment was an attack, your first response should have been to ask the editor to remove or rephrase the comment, and not to take it upon yourself to remove it.--JOJ Hutton 20:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I direct you to the explanation at User talk:Jojhutton#Talk Page Guidelines. Again, personal attacks and threats are not "legitimate talk page comments". If you re-add these attacks again, we'll be having this discussion with the admins at AN/I. -- Avanu (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll jump in here. My comment was not a threat. Still's behavior on that talk page is disruptive and a clear case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It would be benefit all if he started listening and not taking this to issue to complaint venues. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- My 2 cents is that if you guys feel the RfC has run its course, ask an uninvolved admin for a close. If Still continues to open more RfCs or just won't drop it then, you have good grounds for a block. But simply telling someone they need to be quiet because you disagree with them is something I've seen too many times at Wikipedia, and given the other options we have, there's really no need for it. -- Avanu (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- My comment was about disruptive behavior, not about content that I may or may not disagree with. I'd much rather Still correct his interactions with others then have blocks issued. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- My comment was about disruptive behavior, not about content that I may or may not disagree with. I'd much rather Still correct his interactions with others then have blocks issued. little green rosetta(talk)
- My 2 cents is that if you guys feel the RfC has run its course, ask an uninvolved admin for a close. If Still continues to open more RfCs or just won't drop it then, you have good grounds for a block. But simply telling someone they need to be quiet because you disagree with them is something I've seen too many times at Wikipedia, and given the other options we have, there's really no need for it. -- Avanu (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the mess
I saw your post on the drama board, and I'm sorry about the mess this is causing. I just wanted a simple RfC to get the input of Wikipedia as opposed to the same few editors who already watch that article. I do agree that many of the remarks were uncivil, threatening and just plain inappropriate, but in my experience, ANI is not a particularly effective medium for, uhm, anything. I appreciate that you have the moral conviction to do the right thing, but I'm telling you that it looks pretty hopeless. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- It certainly isn't your fault. I believe in a stronger standard of civility than the average editor. I'm a bit of a throwback in a way, because at the time our policies were formed, Civility was so important that it was made a Pillar of the community. Unfortunately, as time as passed, and more editors have come on board, little things have crept in that most editors don't see as uncivil. So it is an uphill battle, and as many editors know, the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents is not the least hostile place in Wikipedia. Just like some in law enforcement, administrators who often deal with troublemakers begin to get a bit jaded. I think this could be fixed, but it would require a lot more consensus among admins that it must change. We aren't there yet, but one day, we might be. And that is the best one can hope for at times. -- Avanu (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- We may disagree on some content issues, but I don't see any disagreement about this. I'm really not sure what the correct answer is for incivility and personal attacks. There's WP:WQA, but that doesn't seem to do anything. I've been accused of personal attacks on ANI twice, but neither one made any sense, so they were dismissed. As far as I can tell, even reporting someone on ANI marks you in the eyes of some admins as some sort of drama queen.
- As you may have noticed, I face near-constant incivility and occasional personal attacks and threats. Mostly, I just shrug and ignore them. Sometimes I point them out when it's relevant, but I just move on. I don't ask them to refactor because they won't, and I don't refactor, because then I get dragged to ANI. Basically, I've given up on Wikipedia being a non-abusive environment. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Try to edit from NPOV - leave preconceived notions behind
The basis for your proposed change at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#RFC:_Rename_needed is evidently that you don't believe scientists have the capacity to model global warming. This appears to be based on preconceived notions that you have about what can be done with global climate models (which are themselves tested against the past). This sort of non-evidence based approach is similar to denial of evolution by creationists; they have preconceived notions but the scientific field disagrees with it; we could have an article Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_evolution and it would be of similar length. I suggest you look at the background of the individuals at List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming, most of whom are not in climatology. Just because someone is a scientist, doesn't mean they have any qualifications to speak about climatology. When you defer your judgement to the reliable sources you will see that these people are what you call the "outsiders". Most of their comments were for opinion pieces in newspapers. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I really dislike when people like yourself lack the ability to read the text on the page. I gave my personal views just to be more frank and open, yet those have very little to do with the argument. I had a strong feeling that my arguments might get attacked not on their own merit, but through the lens of my personal views, and lookie here, it has come to pass. If you actually read what I wrote there, I propose a VERY VERY VERY minor change, one that is in line with the text already on the page, which is to change "Mainstream" to "Consensus View", and there hardly needs to be more evidence for such a change than simply reading the article itself and seeing that it uses the term 'consensus' already. But hey, take a potshot or two, I was willing to express a personal opinion, and I should have known better than to be open and honest here. (Sorry for the grumpiness, but it annoys me that I spent so much time crafting arguments and debates on this, just so that someone can focus on a latter statement where I give a personal view and they latch onto that and essentially cry 'heretic, you have no faith in the science!' It is a load of you-know-what to ignore 90% of what I say and simply focus on my personal views, and then ASSUME I cannot separate the two in an article.) -- Avanu (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your change of wording doesn't make clear that the consensus view is actually the mainstream scientific view on the matter. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why does that matter? -- Avanu (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest reading WP:FRINGE in full to get an idea of wikipedia policies in this area (WP:FRINGE is a guideline pull-out from WP:NPOV). Distinguishing what is mainstream and what is not is important on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the only problem is that the List seems to be lumping all these scientists in the 'fringe' area, and while I haven't extensively looked at the list, WP:FRINGE say that honest scientific differences shouldn't be called fringe or non-Mainstream, but simply addressed as a part of the legitimate scientific process. After all, almost everything we believe now was once an uncommon belief, but scientific inquiry has refined our knowledge of the universe. My question for the List article is whether we are painting scientists as outsiders or fringe because they have a tiny deviation from the consensus view, or are taking a principled and scientific stand for some reason (like believing there is lack of data), when that would be an unfair characterization. This would be different from the guy who simply thinks climate science is "bunk" and has never shown any real scientific acumen in his life. -- Avanu (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that the world is full of contrarians. We have articles (Merchants of Doubt is one) on the tobacco lobby using "scientists" to oppose any restriction on the promotion or availability of cigarettes. What was needed in that case were experts in lung cancer and epidemiology, but what the lobby produced were experts in totally unrelated fields (often at the declining stage of their careers, while the longing for one more impact lingered on). That's why FRINGE is strict: if a world-famous physicist publishes photos of Big foot, we don't update that article to announce that an expert confirms that big foot is alive. Similarly, the mainstream view is that smoking causes cancer. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the only problem is that the List seems to be lumping all these scientists in the 'fringe' area, and while I haven't extensively looked at the list, WP:FRINGE say that honest scientific differences shouldn't be called fringe or non-Mainstream, but simply addressed as a part of the legitimate scientific process. After all, almost everything we believe now was once an uncommon belief, but scientific inquiry has refined our knowledge of the universe. My question for the List article is whether we are painting scientists as outsiders or fringe because they have a tiny deviation from the consensus view, or are taking a principled and scientific stand for some reason (like believing there is lack of data), when that would be an unfair characterization. This would be different from the guy who simply thinks climate science is "bunk" and has never shown any real scientific acumen in his life. -- Avanu (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest reading WP:FRINGE in full to get an idea of wikipedia policies in this area (WP:FRINGE is a guideline pull-out from WP:NPOV). Distinguishing what is mainstream and what is not is important on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why does that matter? -- Avanu (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your change of wording doesn't make clear that the consensus view is actually the mainstream scientific view on the matter. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I really dislike when people like yourself lack the ability to read the text on the page. I gave my personal views just to be more frank and open, yet those have very little to do with the argument. I had a strong feeling that my arguments might get attacked not on their own merit, but through the lens of my personal views, and lookie here, it has come to pass. If you actually read what I wrote there, I propose a VERY VERY VERY minor change, one that is in line with the text already on the page, which is to change "Mainstream" to "Consensus View", and there hardly needs to be more evidence for such a change than simply reading the article itself and seeing that it uses the term 'consensus' already. But hey, take a potshot or two, I was willing to express a personal opinion, and I should have known better than to be open and honest here. (Sorry for the grumpiness, but it annoys me that I spent so much time crafting arguments and debates on this, just so that someone can focus on a latter statement where I give a personal view and they latch onto that and essentially cry 'heretic, you have no faith in the science!' It is a load of you-know-what to ignore 90% of what I say and simply focus on my personal views, and then ASSUME I cannot separate the two in an article.) -- Avanu (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
People are quick to complain about talk page refactoring when they don't like it, so I thought I should thank you for the refactor of my comment at User talk:Jimbo Wales! The funny thing is that I was thinking of putting in a line break myself, but ran out of puff. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I found myself wondering if you were addressing me at first, and as I read over it a couple more times, I picked up on what you said, and thought it might be more clear with those tiny changes. I'm glad it was a good change. :) -- Avanu (talk) 10:24, 28 August 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!
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 Wikipedia 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) 12:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Stay off my talk page
I have no interest in your opinions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously. I would ask that you hold your opinion if you aren't willing to use it for anything other than a personal shot at my expense. -- Avanu (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Help request
User:Avanu, never had direct communiation w/ you. I see from reading Still* talk, that you understand and believe in BLP policy, and express your ideas sharply and clearly. That is what I need. I need help on the BLP issue, because my understanding is uncertain, and I'm looking to learn, and am confused. Can you help me get an understanding?
I came across what I thought was an obvious BLP violation, a Youtube video accusing a BLP subject of misdeed, I removed the material, opened a Talk section on it, but without any discussion the material was restored and I was criticized for removing the material. (My first learning lesson: did I do wrong? or right?) Then the article was subsequently added to. (Which I still don't think justifies keeping the accusatory Youtube video in the BLP, but now the issue has been changed, and before dealing with it, I'd like to first confirm or correct my understanding as above. Also, I am having difficulty getting any discussion going on my BLP concerns, after opening an item on at BLPN, and having some exchanged postings with an admin user who added the additional material changing the issues somewhat. He appeared to be open to discuss, but I can't get it going and don't know what the problem is even though I've started my discussion concerns and reminded him too.)
This is all very confusing to me and I'm looking for help as right now I'm very confused about how to handle a BLP concern since I seem to "not exist".
The article is Dawn Marie Psaltis. The admin referred to is User talk:Nightscream.
Thanks for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I took a look and removed that entire section. It is based on poor sourcing and tit-for-tat primary sources. This is honestly terrible Wikipedia writing. The quote from Nightscream of "Relying on YouTube videos created by people who are not themselves considered RS's or notable is not appropriate, and I have indeed removed such videos when cited as sources. But when the creator of the video is themselves a notable person, that makes it appropriate, IMO." This is an awful statement, especially coming from an Administrator. To quote WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" You don't get to decide its 'ok' because James Earl Jones said it. If it is not published in a reliable, non-primary source, it RARELY gets used. For example, how do we *know* that retired wrestler Kamala has his facts in order? Maybe he is being misled by someone else. Maybe he is unaware that he received a donation. There are lots of possibilities, and to avoid us deciding who is trustworthy as a primary source and who isn't, we choose to rely on secondary sources. The same is true of Dawn Marie and her charity. How do we know she is being honest with us? She has a conflict of interest and would want to promote her own interests. Again, we rely on WP:Reliable Sources, not just shoddy newswork or primary sources where we cannot be sure of the facts. Complicating this is the fact that it is a biographical article, and unquestionably falls under WP:BLP. I cannot in good conscience, add a poorly sourced allegation of criminal fraud to an article, no matter how notable the person making the allegation is. It is irresponsible, and potentially opens Wikipedia to lawsuits. We don't want to waste money fighting lawsuits at Wikipedia because we end up libelling someone. Good sources are paramount here. Also, one final point. Nightscream may be an admin, but he is involved in the content here, and as such, is prohibited from acting under the color of administrative power with regard to this article. So, you should simply treat him as you would any other editor -- respectfully, but not wary of him hitting you with administrative sanctions. But you should still follow policy no matter who you're dealing with. -- Avanu (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- User:Avanu, thank you very much. (Much more than I "bargained" for. Education and intervention!) This is an opportunity for me to learn some things about BLP policy and sourcing policy, and WP itself, as a number of little things, some of the surrounding details, still puzzle me and I think you could help me (quick answers are fine) if you have time, or time-permitting ...
- Q1: I did not "buy" User:Nightscream's argument, that because Kamala was himself notable, that therefore an accusatory Youtube video made by Kamala can be included in the BLP as a ref. (That argument didn't make sense to me, since it would allow untold number of such refs to be added, which due to absurdity shows something is very wrong with that argument for keeping.) But rather than my argument, yours for discluding was that the Kamala vid is a primary source. (I think I didn't think of that because my understanding of primary source in the context of the BLP on Psaltis would be something and only something direct from her, about her. But I see now [thing #1 I'm learning] is that "primary" is not relative to the article subject, but relative to the ref itself. So Kamala is referencing himself as an authority as to what his message is in the vid, and so it is a primary source. [I think that's right; let me know if wrong.])
- Okay, here's the Q1 ... User:Nightscream added a ref to an article at cagesideseats.com, but I looked at the article and all it was, was a wrestler site member contributing voluntarily an "article" on the site about the existence of the Kamala video, and his personal postulations about it. Okay question ... although that seems tacky and worthless in and of itself, it does take Kamala out of the loop of getting attenion to his self-made video on Youtube, and now a "secondary source" has noted it exists. To me that still seems totally worthless, and I told User:Nightscream that a reference asserting that the video exists (which is all the ref really did) isn't necessary, since the video exists on Youtube, and doesn't need any ref attempting to further support that it exists. User:Nightscream never answered. So I'm left puzzled, what he thought the purpose was to add that ref. (Was it because it is a third party talking about the Kamala vid, and not Kamala himself? Ignoring for a minute the lack of value or allowability of the Kamala video?)
- (In other words, was there any basis or purpose of the cagesideseats.com ref, consistent with BLP policy, even if it failed for other reasons, or lack of quality, etc.?)
- Q2: User:Nightscream, after my revert of the Kamala Youtube video ref, and after another user's re-add of that ref, added an additional ref regarding Psaltis's *reply* to Kamala's accusatory video. And then after adding that ref, gave me argument that (and I'm paraphrasing) "it is a little hard to include the Psaltis response, without also including the Kamala video, so there's context for Psaltis's response". Well, that argument didn't make much sense to me, and even seemed disingenuous, since, the Kamala video had been added, and re-added, way prior to any ref regarding a response from Psaltis. (So, the response ref from Psaltis seemed to be added for the purpose and function of supporting retention of the Kamala accusatory video. Had there been interest to have the Psaltis response in the article firstly, then of course there would be need for context, specifically the Kamala accusation; however, that was not the order, the horse seems before the cart in User:Nightscream's argument. I thought his argument was peculiar, but then I realized he was proponent for keeping in the incendiary Youtube accusation against Psaltis, so, at that point I was feeling his argument was not only peculiar but also manipulative.)
- You removed the Psaltis response ref, on the basis that it is also a primary not secondary source. Is this true, even though a website is reporting the fact of her response? (I know there is no analysis there; just an indication her response exists, I believe.)
- Q3: So I can learn something here, let's assume the Psaltis response ref and the Kamala accusatory ref were *not* primary, but quality secondary sources. I was wondering, if such an accusation and response, belong in the BLP at any rate? (WP:DUE, etc.) User:Nightscream and another user obviously felt strongly they wanted the Kamala accusation in the article, but, the article is a BLP, I'm sure the BLP subject has had a rich life with many things happening in it, at what point is the judgement correct, that "this is significant enough that it belongs in the BLP"? (To me, the accusation seems like a tacky, undocumented, worthless event. No lawsuits have been filed, I think. The fact that Psaltis responded to the accusation, isn't a conclusive measure, in my view, that the incident has "gotta be in the BLP". No. (But I wouldn't know how to go about making that argument with said editors, had the refs been reliable. Just the fact there are reliable refs doesn't trump WP:UNDUE, right? Or appropriateness for a BLP, right?)
- In summary for Q3: Is there policy that guides inclusion (if the refs were reliable) other than WP:UNDUE? (And if the only guidance is WP:UNDUE, then, is it just a consensus of involvoed editors, what they feel is significant enough for the person's BLP? Because it seems a good chance of being vague and subjective, yes?)
- Q4: In Q3 I asked, even if the refs were reliable, how is it determined if it is really significant enough (WP:UNDUE) to include in the article. In Q4, I'm wondering, *when* does such inclusion of material, go into the *other person's* BLP? (Example: Donald Trump has accused Barack Obama of not presenting an authentic birth certificate in secondary source reports. Obama responded in a news conference which covered the release of his birth certificate. It should please User:Nightscream, that Donald Trump is a notable person with an accusation, and in this case the sources are secondary and reliable. However, *nowhere* in the Barack Obama BLP is even one word about the accusation, or even one word about Obama's response. (Instead, the accusation refs, and Obama's response refs, are contained in the Donald Trump BLP.) So, had User:Nightscream decided to discuss with me, he would have faced this consistency question. (I.e., if the accusatory material, and response, is to be included somewhere, why in the BLP article of the accused, Psaltis? Why not, as in the case of Trump versus Obama, in the accuser's BLP, in Kamalas BLP? What justifies allowing Kamala's accusation in the Psaltis article, when Trump's accusation has been completely excluded from the Obama article, and is instead located in the Trump article?)
- Summary for Q4: Is it "matter of choice" where to include accusatory/potentially incendiary material? Or is the example of birth certificate accusation (Trump versus Obama) that way for a reason, according to guideline, policy, or good BLP writing? Or what?
- Q5: I never felt in danger of any sanction by admin User:Nightscream, but, since he was admin, I did assume that he would know BLP policy very well (because I have seen the knowledge expectations in RfAs regarding candidates screened for the mop). User:Nightscream passed RfA, so I assumed if he made any mistake regarding something important as BLP policy, it would be a nuance of interpretation, small error. But this does not seem to be the case. (Rather, he seems to have made several glaring errors.) How can this be explained? (I'm puzzled. The vetting at RfA is more thorough than that.) It crossed my mind that since User:Nightscream was an advocate for including the accusatory Kamala Youtube video, and provided a ref of Psaltis's response after-the-fact, then gave argument for inclusion of the Kamala video based on the necessity of provding a context in the presence of the Psaltis response ref, well, as mentioned that argument seems backward.
- A consideration which would explain all of this, is if User:Nightscream had a POV on the matter. But, I did not think that, or believe that, since, ... he is admin. (Even though "involved", I would think the fact he knows he is admin, that to push incendiary material in a BLP in violation of policy for servicing his own personal POV on the subject, would be taboo. So I never thought or concluded this was the explanation. [It turns out that is no doubt good WP:AGF on my part, but really, AGF had nothing to do with it; it simply wasn't logical to me that an admin would ever knowingly do those things, so I dismissed it as a possible explanation.] But! That leaves me without explanation, for how an admin, can make so many serious errors in this case. I did not look [and have not looked] at the history of his RfA. [I.e., if it was too many years ago, then I know vetting was not thorough re knowledge on policy.])
- Summary of Q5: How could User:Nightscream screw up so badly?!
- Q6: When I removed the Kamala accusatory video Youtube ref, I left an edit summary explaning why. Q: Is my understanding correct, that because of the violation of BLP policy, I wasn't required to leave the edit summary? (I know it is good practice to always leave an edit summary. But technically, would I have been also well within policy, if I simply reverted without summary?)
- Q7: Immediately after I removed the Kamala accusatory video Youtube ref, I opened a Talk section and gave further explanation there. A user came in and, without any discussion at the article Talk, re-added the material. (Reverted my removal.) Then the user started criticising me at the article Talk section.
- Am I correct in noting, that the user was in violation of policy in several ways? ... 1) For re-adding the material in violation of BLP? 2) For edit-warring, by reverting without discussion at article Talk? (The material had previously been removed, without edit summary, by an IP user. The user that reverted me, re-added the material, and claimed the action by the IP user was vandalism. So when I removed the Youtube video ref, it was the second time that matieral had been removed [at least]; I was the second editor to remove it, not the first. So when the editor re-added the ref after my removal, without discussion, it was the second time he did so, and he ignored my edit summary which was an invitation to article Talk.)
- Summary: Wasn't he responsible for "edit-warring"?
- (And if so, User:Nightscream, an admin, never cautioned him, or mentioned it. I would like to understand.)
- Q8: After I removed the Youtube video ref, and opened a Talk section, and was reverted by the user who re-added the material without discussion, the user then came to the article Talk section and started making ad hominem and personal attacks. Was this contrary to policy too? (And again, User:Nightscream, an admin who arrived subsequently, apparently didn't find it appropriate, to caution the user, even though I mentioned to User:Nightscream several times that I wasn't too pleased to be on receiving end of such hostility.)
- Summary: What's going on with User:Nightscream, and admin, to not notice, to not advise the user?
- Q9: After I removed the Youtube video ref, and opened a Talk section, and was reverted by the user who re-added the material without discussion, and after the user then came to the article Talk and started making ad hominem and personal attacks, ... I think I responded to the user calmly. But I decided there was little chance of getting any agreement or consensus with him, regarding the BLP violation. (He insisted there was no violation, that the Youtube video ref should stay in the article because Kamala's accusation was reported in the news a lot, and because he also knew that Psaltis had also responded to the accusations [although, Psaltis's response was not documented in the article at that point]. He then suggested to me to go find additional sources that would support the retention of the accusatory Youtube video ref in the article!) So, what I did, was open an item on WP:BLPN.
- Summary: Was that the proper thing to do? (User:Nightscream had not made appearance at the article at that point. Only after I opened a thread at BLPN.) Or should I have done RfC? Or WP:WQA? Or ... what?? (Did I do the correct thing by opening a BLPN?)
- Q10: When I opened the BLPN item, there was never any response from anyone other than User:Nightscream at the BLPN thread. (User:Nightscream did not discuss there, but asked to move discussion to the article Talk, where I was already on receiving end of ad hominem attacks and personal attacks. I mentioned several times to User:Nightscream, that I wanted to discuss the BLP issue, but preferred to do it at his User talk. He never replied in the negative to that request, and I'm sure my requests to discuss at his Talk were clear. I was never able to get any discussion from him on the BLP issue. (Perhaps he's been busy. I am not making any accusation here. But he's been active on WP, and, in spite of numerous requests from me to continue the discussion re the BLP issue, he never responded that he was busy, or noted my request to conduct discussion later, or assure me in any way the discussion could take place with him at any point. Instead, he left things hanging.)
- The only recourse I can know what to do under the circumstance, is rely on BLPN. (Is that correct? I know I wrote you and you settled the matter, but for this Q, pretend that didn't happen.) And if I were to return to the BLPN thread to get help there, to protect the Psaltis article, *how* does one get a response at the BLPN? (Are there BLP specialists, or admins, observing that board? Why didn't any of them respond, or help me, or check out what was happening? If there are observers of the BLPN that are qualified re BLP policy interpretation, how do I get their attention to respond, if I ever have occasion to go there again? [This was my first experience at that board.])
- Q11: After I removed the Youtube video ref, and opened a Talk section, and was reverted by the user who re-added the material without discussion, I did not revert the user since I did not want to "edit-war". Yet, WP policy WP:BLPREMOVE tells me to revert the material immediately. So, ... what if I had done so? (My best crystal-ball guess, is that the user who reverted my removal the first time, would have done so again, and given me another scolding. And if I reverted his re-restoration again, I guess he would have reverted me a third time. And so on, constituting an edit-war, where one or both users could be blocked for edit-warring disruption. But, according to policy, my reverts would not be counted toward any 3RR bright rule. So by policy then, am I exempt from a block based on edit-warring? [I'm reverting the material "immediately", as I'm supposed to do.] Yet, in other places on WP I've read, to not participate in edit-wars, "even if you believe you are correct". So now policy at WP:BLPREMOVE is telling me to remove the material at once, but the latter advice is telling me to not do that action even though it is believed right. Which wins? Which is the correct instruction to follow? In this confusion, if I had followed WP:BLPREMOVE advice to revert the material immediately, and it didn't count toward 3RR, if an admin had spotted an edit-war at that point and blocked me, would the block have been removed because it was in error, or would the blocking admin justify keeping the block because I violated WP guideline of participating in edit-war "even though you believed you were right"?)
- This is all very confusing, and I'd like to understand, when you have time to give feedback. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Q12: When you arrived and reverted the section, no one re-reverted you. Hypothetical: what if they had? (What if the user who reverted me, or User:Nightscream, had subsequently reverted you? What would you have done? Would you have re-removed the section? Or some other action?)
- I like to understand this, to better understand how processes get back on the tracks after a derailment. And what consequences result in the wake. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- ...
- If I can get answers from you (short [and "pointed"] answers are perfectly fine for me, to save your time), I'll learn and mature as WP editor. Thank you, I appreciate! Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow that was a lot of text... here's some answers:
Q3: It is ultimately up to the editors.
Q4: I think it is in Trump's because he said it, and left out of Obama's because he didn't say it. I think it is ultimately the call of the editors.
- So in the Psaltis BLP, it was Kamala who said it (made the accusation). So if suit is followed, the accusation should be in Kamala's BPL. There was distinct effort by two editors to include it in Psaltis's BLP. What would be rational basis or criteria to choose, beyond what editors "want". (Isn't it true though, that to include in Psaltis article, is more problematical for WP, and harder to defend, than putting in the accuser's [Kamala's] BLP? To protect BLPs, shouldn't incendiary material always go into the accusers BLP, if there's a choice? [Wouldn't it always be riskier to put in the subject's [Psaltis's] BLP?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Q5: Everyone messes up sometimes.
- I notice too, when User:Nightscream added this cite to the article, he added the following text to the article, which is word-for-word and only differs from the cited source by the addition of a comma:
(Isn't that violation of some basic WP policy related to plagiarism? And if I'm right about that, then this Admin has also "messed up" on an additional fundamental WP policy?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)a public accounting of all funds handed out, and that they were not able to raise funds for Jerry Lynn because of the negative press from the Williams incident, and that all memorabilia collected was saved to be used for the next wrestler they helped.
- I notice too, when User:Nightscream added this cite to the article, he added the following text to the article, which is word-for-word and only differs from the cited source by the addition of a comma:
Q6: Leaving an edit summary helps you defend your edits.
Q7: Yep, that editor was *technically* edit warring. But most of the time we cut people slack on the first couple of such things. If it becomes a back and forth more than once though... you have to tread more carefully.
Q8: Yeah, policy says no personal attacks WP:NPA. Nightscream was acting in editor mode, not admin mode. There's no duty of any editor to stand up for other editors, but it is the polite thing to do.
Q9: If you can't get any reasonable discussion at a Talk page, opening a neutrally worded invitation for more eyes on the discussion is a good thing. Like you did at BLPN. If you try and bias the debate, or take the debate to several other unconnected pages and try to "win" there, it is called forum shopping. But if you simply ask people to come to the debate in progress, its just fine.
Q10: I think BLPN is one of the less viewed places. You end up seeing more attention at Jimbo Wales Talk page, or the Administrator's Noticeboards, but you never know what you'll get at any of these. Sometimes people will just ask other editors that they have crossed paths with to come and look at the debate. As long as you are neutral in the way you ask for them to come look, you are good. If you try and win the argument at their page, and then bring them over, it is forum shopping.
- That's surprising (that BLPN is one of lesser-viewed places). Isn't that a bit weird, since WP has its own interest at stake (no lawsuits), on BLP articles? (The policies on BLP seem to stress how very important to follow them is. But if the BLPN board are little-watched ... it seems to be an inconsistency of priority. Curious: what accounts for the lack of participation on the BLPN board? Curious: Aren't posters there, like I was poster, frustrated at lack of responsiveness from that board? Is anything in the works to fix patrolling at BLPN? And last: If I'd opened up a section at AN/I, wouldn't a likely response have been to go to BLPN instead? This is a bit confusing!)
Q11: With BLP and the edit warring exception, it is really just a matter of interpretation. The safest thing is to treat it just barely different, and use a lot of boldness in your attitude, but not so much in your actions. :) The safer thing for you as an editor is to not get sucked into an edit war, even if you think policy makes you right. There is an Edit Warring noticeboard, and the BLP noticeboard, if you think someone is causing problems.
- That's really weird! (Because it seems, even in the clearest case of BLP violation under WP:BLPREMOVE, and even if the removing editor is top-notch in his understanding of BLP policy, an admin could still block him, even though WP:BLPREMOVE instructs a user to remove the offending material "immediately", for the very important protection of both BLP subject, and Wikipedia. (It seems the violator of the BLP policy, is set up to dominate -- by the time needed to go to a noticeboard, and generate a discussion, especially on the slow-moving BLPN. It seems Wikipedia, if it genuinely had interests of the BLP subject at stake, and Wikipedia itself, then somehow that favor should be built into the policy, otherwise, the good faith exercise of WP:BLPREMOVE, could end up getting an editor blocked, even though he was right, even though he knew what he was doing, because an admin didn't like the look of "edit-warring". Wouldn't it be better to build into the policy more benefit of the doubt for the removing editor, erroring on the side of protecting both BLP subject and Wikipedia? Or do each of the individual admins know that the conservative action should be given benefit of the doubt, other things being equal?) .
Q12: If someone had reverted me, I would probably have boldly reverted them *ONE TIME*, but after that, I would have worked in ways to break down their arguments and make them come to my 'turf'. Part of the thing that helped me is that I know policy fairly well, I was very pushy and bold in my address to Nightscream. And, most importantly... I got lucky that they were willing to listen, and that RedPen came along as well. There's no magic to it. Sometimes people will all be jerks and you'll be drawn into the mess. You have to steer clear of that stuff and know when to drop it, when to complain to a noticeboard, and when to push back. But in any event, steer clear of getting sucked into a mess too far. -- Avanu (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- If there's edit-warring on a BLP violation like this, I just had thought: maybe an admin, who might pose a sanction to stop the edit war, should impose a stiffer sanction, than normal edit war, due to higher importance (presumed) ascribed to BLPs and WP's (presumed) serious interest to keep them right. Anyway, thanks, it's been helpful to pick your brain what would you do etc., I apprediate your answers. (I can see you've lots of experience, so it's fastest way for me to learn protocol, to ask you. Thx again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)