Jump to content

User talk:Unitanode/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

BobtheTomato

I had no idea that was you. Remember this post? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

2010s page - Generation Jones mention - no sources

Hi! Hope you had a great New Year. I thought you would like to join the discussion about unsourced information on the 2010s page at this user discussion page ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢. The article needs lots of references, and people keep adding back information on Generation Jones on here as well. Is there no way to nominate the deletion of such an article page? I have only heard of this generation on Wikipedia. I'd hardly recognize it like I do the Beat Generation. I know how to use the templates for 'needs reference' or something like that, but I guess I had some trouble with the rest of the templates. Let me know what you think. In the meantime, I am re-reading the citation articles on Wiki.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Abe Lincoln (musician) hatnote

Thanks for removing that. FYI, discussion about it is still going on at both Talk:Abraham Lincoln and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup

Hey, if we lose, at least there'll be a WikiCup Recyclables! --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Letterman

I spent hours making that list. Please don't delete it. The chart represents David Letterman's complete awards nomination history. It does not properly belong on his show's page, as you suggested, because the list represents Letterman's own individual achievements, and not that of his shows'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.55.70 (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Why don't you consider starting a list instead? The massive amount of text it adds to that page just isn't tenable, and such a list might actually be noteworthy. UnitAnode 05:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
"might actually be noteworthy." Oh, it might? Really? I had no idea! Thanks for nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.55.70 (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I tried to help you, by offering some suggestions. Starting a stand-alone list article is certainly one idea. UnitAnode 13:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Grant

User:Cmguy777 has been trying for some time to improve this article to GA status (it just failed GA review), so I suspect the user is making some sizable changes to match the feedback. I realize your change was a good-faith reversion; it seems unlikely that user is actually vandalizing the page, no matter what the edit seems to indicate. It would be a great idea if user was better indicating intention though helpful edit summaries. BusterD (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Did I revert him? If I did, it was completely by accident. I was checking several "no edit summary" changes on my watchlist, and I must have pressed rollback by accident. UnitAnode 19:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries. If I'd seen a red-linked user who blanked an entire section, I'd have reverted without too much closer inspection myself. I've been watching the user's valiant efforts with this difficult material. BusterD (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

JamshidAwal

Hi there, may I know why you just went and changed my articl. You basically reverted my articel to what it was 10 secs ago after I made changes. Meanwhile I am chatting with Wikipedia Admin on how to improve this article??? --JamshidAwal (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

JamshidAwal, it is not your article. Once you hit that "Save page" button, it becomes the community's article and may be edited at will by anyone within common sense and basic guidelines. As it says below the "Save page" button, If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. Regards, –MuZemike 21:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

JamshidAwal

My appologies MuZemike I didn't mean to sound too harsh..it's just that I am honest to god exhausted trying to iprove this one little tiny article.. every day I check there's another John Doe tha has tagged or left a message.. But reste assured that I vigouroulsy try to improve it..allthough at this point I don't know what else I could possible change.. nonetheless I have engaged in a conversation with the Wikipedia Bio admins and the current version seems to be okay with them.. they are still reviewing it.. I would ask yo then to let them deal with this article.. we all know what happens when there are too many cooks in the kitchen..lol --JamshidAwal (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

2010s article ...

You keep reverting the 2010s article to say that the 2010s are the second decade of the 21st century. I keep trying to explain to you that the claim you are making (or reinstating) is simply incorrect, at least as currently written.

Even the 2000s article does not claim that the 2000s are the first decade of the 21st century or the 3rd millennium!!! Instead it uses the more subtle and technically correct language that "(The 2000s) was the decade in which the 21st century and 3rd millennium began." That claim is correct because the 21st century and the 3rd millennium started on 12:00am Jan 1, 2001, which is within the 2000s.

If the 2000s are not the first decade of the 21st century, then why on Earth are the 2010s the second decade of the 21st century? Why do you even feel the need to make this (incorrect) claim when almost all the other decade articles are just fine specifying their start and end dates?

71.179.4.216 (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Then what is your source for claiming that the 2010s are the 2nd decade of the 21st century? I removed that unverified claim. If you want to put it back in, then you should provide a good source backing that claim. 71.179.4.216 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I am with Unitanode on this one. The 1900-1999 Century was the "20th Century. That is how dates work, in English, at least. Are there exceptions? Maybe. None come to mind to me. And if there were -- they would be exceptions, and should not proscribe Unitanode, or any one else, from describing the 2010-2019 decade as the second decade of the 21st Century. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Generations article

I was fixing the errors of the previous editor. Why was the 1979 date left out of the China section in regards to the one child policy. And the wording "seen used" is , well wordy. I say delete it. And the other user added '1970s' to the phrase in the Baby Boomer section, but I don't recall seeing that in the Strauss and Howe book Generations. I will have to check on that. What are your thoughts on this? Oh, and thanks for catching previous acts of vandalism. Saved me the trouble. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Unitanode. You have new messages at Skier Dude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A. P. J. Abdul Kalam

Regarding the picture, as you were the one that replaced it I thought to let you know that there is a small discussion regarding the picture here, on the article talkpage , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

For the record I'm on your side about Saoirse Ronan NOT being American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.252.142 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

BADSITE

I saw your response to Aditya's comment at Everyking's RfA. I think the concern is not the mere fact that Everyking has posted to Wikipedia Review, but rather the content of those posts. I was wondering if you were aware of this message. (I ask because I only became aware of that during the course of this RfA.) That's explicitly encouraging real-life harrassment of another Wikipedia editor at his place of employment, and that's way over the line of what's acceptable. Ever, anywhere — Wikipedia Review or not. I have replied to your comment at the RfA page.

If you want to support Everyking's RfA, feel free — but please don't do it to mock Aditya's legitimate concerns. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  • While I don't agree with what Everyking posted there (and from what was written, I'm not even sure he was intending for anyone to take him seriously), I've been on the receiving end of the bullying that he was talking about, and I'll say it's not a fun experience. As for "mocking" Aditya's "legitimate" concerns, it's my opinion that if s/he can opposed based on his posting to WR, then I can support based on that, which is what I was basically doing. Regards, UnitAnode 03:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please lay off the personal attacks

Nothing about this situation is helped by resorting to insults and attacks on the individuals involved. Please stop, and engage constructively and civilly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Commenting on your asinine behavior isn't a personal attack, it's an attack on your asinine behavior, nothing more and nothing less. Now move along, and let Lar know which ones you're willing to look up sources for, so he can userify them for you. Feel free to post here as often as you want. I find great humor in your self-important blathering. UnitAnode 04:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Deprodding

I assume you were talking about Bernard Comrie and Yuen-Ying Chan. While I agree that Yuen-Ying Chan needs a lot of clean-up, I don't really have interest in the subject, so I'm sorry but I am not planning to work more on it (I found the article while patrolling prods, not from interest in the subject). However, I disagree that deletion is the solution to the problems in that article. The article has sources in it, and those sources support that she won the awards listed, which in turn is enough to pass the notability guidelines. Yes, it would be better if the sources were changed to in-line citations rather than being dumped in the external links section, but deletion won't fix that problem. It would also be good if someone removed any unsourced statements in the article, leaving only those supported by the sources, but having some unsourced statement is very different from being completely unsourced. All the problems in the article can and should be fixed through cleanup. Again, I am sorry but I don't have much interest in the subject and don't want to do the work myself. If you also do not want to do the work to clean up the article, I would suggest trying to recruit someone from one of the wikiprojects listed on the article's talk page.

For Bernard Comrie, I think that is a perfectly fine stub. The website of a major university is a reliable source (they wouldn't let someone claim to be a prefessor unless they really are a professor), and it has been established at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) that being named a "distinguished professor" is enough to show that the subject is notable. Though significant coverage in independant secondary sources is normally needed to show notability, additional guidelines like Wikipedia:Notability (academics) exist to identify other cases where it is also clear that someone is notable. While their isn't much information on the person himself, that is the nature of academics. Though the article is likely to remain a stub, being a stub isn't a problem per se, and I see nothing wrong with the article as it is.

Anyway, if you disagree with what I've said above, feel free to take the articles to AfD. Calathan (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the response. It's pretty clear we view BLPs quite differently, but at least you've attempted to justify your deprodding. Thanks for that. UnitAnode 07:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning

These are personal attacks: [1] [2] [3]

It so happens that I utterly disagree with the position GWH is advancing here, and that's not the point, but I do recognize your attacks as violations of our rules. If you make comments like these again and I see it, I will block you. Cool Hand Luke 22:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I was not commenting on him as a person, but rather his behavior. It's not a violation of NPA to comment on the behavior of another user. You'd be well-advised to save your block button for actual problems, instead of threatening to act as some kind of civility police. Blocking me for the diff you posted here would not be acceptable in any way. If Herbert continues to post things that read as blathering nonsense, you'd rather I not called it such? UnitAnode 23:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking that perhaps you'd do well to explain, in detail, how those three diffs (where I commented on his behavior) violate NPA. UnitAnode 23:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
They look bitey Unitanode. They stray from the issue and seem to cast aspersions on another editor.
I see a double standard in that Admins are allowed to block people they disagree with, which can be very aggressive and antagonistic, but expressions of frustrations like those in the diffs above aren't allowed, but that's how it is. The civility policy and its enforcement is such that no matter how abusive and intolerant someones behavior is, as long as they are cordial and have friends and supporters, they can get away with a lot. But if you get on the wrong side of the civility enforcers (chief of whom is GWH) you'll get no peace.
You've heard from Luke who agrees with you, and now me who doesn't (hard though it is for me to find myself on GWH's side of the underlying BLP issues in dispute :), just tone it down a notch and keep your comments targeted to the content concerns rather than the other editors involved, no matter how infuriating they are. I will not be offended if this comment is removed. I hope you enjoy your weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
They are "bitey" -- towards his behavior. No part of NPA precludes me from calling his behavior what it is. And I fail to see how you could possibly believe that keeping unsourced BLPs is anything other than repugnant. UnitAnode 02:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
As to the first part of your comment, I think most editors would agree that those type of comments aren't... constructive. As to the second part, I don't see any connection between unreferenced articles and BLP violations. The overwhelming majority of articles I've looked at that people are trying to delete in this purge just need improvement and have been created in good faith.Some of them may not be notable, so they can be deleted via the usual process. I haven't seen any BLP violations in them.
There is a large problem with vandalism, pov pushing, and articles being used to disparage people (and businesses), so I think that's where the focus should be. Deleting the articles that are being targeted doesn't improve the encyclopedia (it makes it worse) and doesn't do anything to address the very real BLP problems, advocacy, bias, or other abuses that go on here. An article with references can be used to attack someone as easily as one without them, and perhaps more so if the refs are misrepresented. Cheers. We'll see how it all plays out. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, you completely lost me when you made the claim that deleting completely unsourced BLPs makes the project worse. That's ludicrous on its face, and I'm done discussing this with anyone who believes such claptrap. I also could do without the civility lectures from someone who once compared their own ideological opponents to Nazis, even going so far as to invoke Holocaust imagery. There's work to be done here (and, right now, sleep to be had), and going back and forth with you on this serves no purpose whatsoever. UnitAnode 05:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • (Note after EC: no one is claiming this solves the WHOLE problem, just that it's a good START. Why don't you take up the gauntlet on checking sourced BLPs for misrepresentations?)

I don't know whether you actually believe that these comments are directed toward behavior, but your claim is false on its face. "self-important blathering," etc. are comments directed at the person (especially considering the measured comments you were replying to). A personal attack is not changed into acceptable commentary through the use of adjectives instead of nouns, and this wikilawyering does not excuse your personal attacks.

As one who agrees with your side of this debate, I wish you would stop clouding the issue with personal digs. It clouds the issue. I believe it actually hurts our cause. I will block you if you continue. Cool Hand Luke 15:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  • It's not wikilawyering to say there's a distinct difference between making a comment about a person and making a comment that characterizes what they've written. Characterizing the words someone has written as "self-important blather" is simply a more colorful (and far less boring) way of saying, "I think you are wrong, and that the things you are saying are self-aggrandizing." Blocking for the above diffs would be ill-advised, in the most generous interpretation. I know you're an arbitrator and an administrator, so you wouldn't face any consequences for sullying a block log over such things, but I'd ask you to please find some more constructive use of your time and your tools. UnitAnode 15:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    • If I were to call the above comment "blathering self-importance," what would it imply? Well, because your comment evinces no remarkable self-importance (and certainly non relevant to the issue at hand), it would imply that I think you are self-important, and that I'm trying to put a fig leaf on my personal attack with the legal fiction that it's directed toward behavior. Again, this is only a warning; don't do it again, and we don't have a problem. I'm sure you have more constructive uses of your time than attacking GWH. Speak with arguments, not vicious labels. That's all I ask. I'm puzzled that you resist this modest request. Cool Hand Luke 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
      • What I "resist" is the characterization of what I wrote as a "personal attack." And I won't be acquiescing to that characterization, no matter how often you repeat it. I've explained to you that my perception of what Herbert wrote was that it evinced blathering self-importance, and I described it as such. That in no way violates NPA, no matter how you try to characterize my remarks. As I wrote before, surely you have other issues of larger import with which to deal. I've been hearing rumors that there are something like 50K+ unsourced BLPs or something like that. I don't think that issue is less important than dealing with my characterization of Herbert's remarks, but perhaps I'm wrong. UnitAnode 16:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Prodding BLPs

Ryan and Xeno

I see you've started prodding BLPs that are unsourced - that's great work, but can you remember to notify the person who created the page when you've tagged it for proposed deletion? Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Once I get to articles that have been created relatively recently, I will start doing so. However, as at this point, since I'm working only on articles that are 3+ years old, and have been unsourced for their entire time in the mainspace, I've focused more on checking to see if they're referenced, and placing the tags. Notifying the creators of such old (and unsourced) articles expands the time sink significantly, and isn't practical (at least in my view) on such old unsourced BLPs. If the creator is still active, and has the page watchlisted, they'll see it and either respond or not. UnitAnode 14:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    • You might consider using twinkle's prod script, which will do the needful for you. –xenotalk 15:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I have never used Twinkle (or any automated script, for that matter). Is there some kind of tutorial for it? UnitAnode 15:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
        • There is WP:Twinkle/doc. Once you enable Twinkle (you can do so by enabling it in gadgets, or adding it to your monobook), there will be a tab along the top that says "prod" (I think). You type (or paste) your rationale, and voila, the article is prodded, and the creator notified. Might even be faster than what you're doing now. (Doesn't work in IE, so I hope you're using a decent browser ;>) –xenotalk 15:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob's complaints, et al

I am sure you think you are doing great work, but you are tagging decent articles, that have clear notability and good external links, it seems excessive way to deal with what is actually not a big problem. I have looked at three of your prods and all of them are worthy articles, you would imo be doing something more creative if you yourself did a simple search and added the citation yourself. Please reconsider what you are doing. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidently you've now started large scale removal of sourced content from BLPs. You have no concievable justification for doing this - please stop. Hut 8.5 16:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Then source them, and save them. There are over 50K unsourced BLPs to go through. I haven't PRODed every one that I've reviewed. I also am not going to spend 5 minutes on every one of them. I've reviewed probably around 80-100 so far, and PRODed maybe 2/3 to 3/4 of them. If you review my work, and want to add references, feel free to do so. But this IS a "big problem", whatever you yourself may think, and some of us are choosing to deal with it. If you'd like to help out, by sourcing these articles and saving them, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. As for "large scale removal of sourced content", that's just a lie. I stub-ify poorly-sourced articles, down to what I can confirm in a quick pass of the source. Take your umbrage elsewhere, Hut. There's work to be done here. UnitAnode 16:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I am not lying. This edit, in which you turned a BLP into a stub, also removed the fact that he was re-elected in 2008. That sentence was sourced (to CBC), and cannot possibly be construed asa controversial. You are not even bothering to restrict your rampage to unsourced content. I request you apologise for unjustly calling me a liar. Hut 8.5 16:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should limit your proposed deletions to article that you do have time to spend 5 minutes on. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
No. The problem is vast. If everyone dealing with it took 5+ minutes on each article, it would be an unimaginable timesink. PRODing is not the problem. Unsourced BLPs are the problem. UnitAnode 16:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There are almost none of them that have issues, some good article you are prodding will get lost, you should stop this immediately, there is nothing desperate to prod them at all, there is nothing derogatory or libelous about them, this is not a big problem at all, please stop now, what you are doing is contentious and I ask you to move to discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  • You can't be serious. They've been unsourced for 3+ years, and you think that "almost none of them have issues"?!? Wow. And, no, I'm not going to stop. It's not contentious, and has support from both the Arbcom motion, Jimmy's statement, and many other respected users. Now feel free to leave me alone. UnitAnode 16:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Any automated script could mass apply prod tags to articles, we don't want that. If you don't have time to put 5 minutes into each article then that is not helpful. At the end of the day if I don't think you have put much effort into which articles you prod and which you do not then I will likely just remove them. We want quality review of articles, not 30 second examinations and a prod tag stamped on it. We don't want to throw away the good articles with the bad you see. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't care what you think is "helpful", Chillum. There is a big problem to be dealt with, and I'm attempting to do so. Feel free to source the articles I prod, using 5 minutes of your own time, if you feel it is necessary. UnitAnode 16:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You should care Unitanode, partially because this is a collaborative editing environment, and partially because prod is only for non-disputed deletion. If I think you have been careless with prod at the end of this day I will remove them. I am telling you this now so that you do not waste your time. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode, I suggest you read WP:PROD before engaging in edit warring over the tag(specifically the part that says "If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{prod}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed."). If it is removed it should not be placed back. Proposals to give BLP special rules for prod have been rejected by the community. If you don't like how {{prod}} works then there is always AFD. Please don't make this into a battle, we are simply trying to preserve the good articles. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm telling you, Chillum, if you remove the PROD tag, from long-time unsourced BLPs, without fixing the issue, you will be reverted. It's a bit ironic that you demand that I spend 5 minutes on each article, before PRODing them, but you're unwilling to source them before removing the PROD tag. This is bigger than you, Chillum, as hard as that might be for you to believe. Unsourced BLPs are a major problem. If you want to help, fine. If you just want to obstruct, you'll be reverted. UnitAnode 16:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I am telling you that edit warring to put back {{prod}} templates will likely end in either you being warned and stopping, or you being warned and not stopping and getting blocked. Does it really have to go that way? Must you insist on using a template meant for non-disputed deletions only to delete things when people are disputing it? Is there something wrong with AfD? Perhaps you would be better off proposing a change at WT:BLP or WT:PROD instead of just doing something you know won't end well. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
And I'm telling you that removal of PRODs from unsourced BLPs, without fixing the problem won't end well for you, Chillum. I'm completely unworried about your silly threats. UnitAnode 16:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


Well, I am not going to do the whole "duck season" "rabbit season" back and forth with you. I know I can save the articles, not sure I can do anything to protect you from yourself though. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Guys, lets stay calm please. That said, removing a PROD without fixing the problem, at this time, under these circumstances, is unhelpful. Chillum, are you doing that? Don't do it. If you're doing it, stop. Please. Alternatively, I'd be happy to summarily delete any unsourced BLP articles that have the PROD tag removed without being fixed, if you'd rather. ++Lar: t/c 16:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, there is no need for this action at all, amongst the articles Unitanode has prodded have been a prime minister of a country and a politician that was ten years a MEP, these articles had multiple external links verifying the notability and the content of what are some valuable articles all they are is without a citation, they aren't libelous or derogatory or damaging in any way. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
What is utterly ridiculous is that you think there is "no need for this action at all." These articles have been unsourced for over THREE YEARS, Off2riorob! If you want to save them, do so. Provide a reference. Expand them. But do not simply obstruct work being done. UnitAnode 16:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
What is interesting is this widespread belief apparently held by those deleting and prodding that these unsourced BLPs are the source of the BLP problem. 95% of unsourced BLPs are non-contentious and non-problematic, it seems to me (a belief upheld by reviewing cache version of many of the summarily deleted articles). Problems arise often in sourced articles--in fact, I didn't understand what the BLP problem really was until I fought hard for the deletion of a very marginal BLP with nasty stuff being fought over in it, and it did have sources cited. If those doing the prodding would agree to spend at least 5 minutes trying to source each article before prodding, I would agree to spend at least 5 minutes trying to add sources before deprodding. But its devolving into nuclear war at this point perhaps. And out of respect for Unitanode, I will not end with any drama-inducing analogies on his talk page.--Milowent (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Deprods

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Nabila Ebeid, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Miroslav Kusý, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

  • As above

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Chris Bombolas, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

deprod on Jean-Claude Guédon

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Jean-Claude Guédon, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 20:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

another deprod of Khosrov Harutyunyan

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Khosrov Harutyunyan, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 20:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Please try to exercise a little more discretion here, and use Google to find sources before PRODing. The subject of this particular deprod was a Prime Minister of Armenia. Reliable sources verifying the existence of a leader of a nation-state are not hard to come by. RayTalk 21:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Meish Goldish

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Meish Goldish, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

By the way, I am going through the list of recently prodded unreffed BLPs. If you want to stop receiving these notices, just let me know, either here or on my talk page. Best, RayTalk 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Devery S. Anderson

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Devery S. Anderson, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 04:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Anuwar Ali

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Anuwar Ali, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 04:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of David Brewerton

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from David Brewerton, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 16:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hey, I saw your oppose on my RfA, and rather than open a debate there, I wanted to clarify the issue with you first. My statement in ANI (based on WP:SOFIXIT is that since we're all editors first, and it takes 10-15 seconds to PROD an article, why not try to take 2 minutes to find a reference. I even clearly state that if after 2 minutes of trying you still can't find one, get rid of the article. Could you please help me to understand how the comment in your oppose relates to this statement? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  • My point is that I had misgivings already, and seeing your tacit approval for the overturning of Kevin's deletions of unsourced BLPs put me over the edge. UnitAnode 14:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Although I gave no such tacit approval - simply suggested we try and fix first, I'm not going to badger you about it. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm curious as to what you meant by it, then. How else could what you suggest be accomplished other than by undeleting the BLPs? UnitAnode 15:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
What I meant is exactly word-for-word what I stated in the first post in this thread. Let me add: I thought we should stop the current deletion process, and address each one as editors, but never suggesting undoing anything (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Your solution, though, replaces maybe hours of work, with days, weeks, or even months of work. Why not simply allow the deletions to proceed, without prejudice against re-creation? To me, that makes more sense than simply leaving thousands of unreferenced BLPs on the project. UnitAnode 15:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
15 seconds to PROD, 2 minutes to find a single reference, and a minute to return it to stub status - as I said in ANI, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of bios because people look here first - would you rather someone say "geez, this Wikipedia doesn't say anything about the person - what good is it", or "hmm, that's them, they need to add to it"? We're all editors first, and it's better than a project that pretends to be a newbie, isn't it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I would rather err on the side of caution, period. I know that when I first started out as a registered account, when I typed in "Tom Dula", it redirected to the famous song "Tom Dooley" instead of having an article about the real man himself. What did I do? I researched and wrote a decent little article about him. The way I see it, if someone types in the name of a living person, and doesn't see an article here about them, they'll look up some sources on the person, and construct a far better article than the piles of absolute literary feces that the current crop of unreferenced BLPs consist of at this point. This is a non-negotiable point for me, and I will oppose any admin candidate who stands remotely on the wrong side (as I view it) of the BLP problem. UnitAnode 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It's cool - I really did not want to see an oppose based on a wrong interpretation, yet it's still there. Contrary to what you think, we're not at all on opposite sides of the BLP coin. Anyway, thanks for your time on this. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) See... We are on the same side after all (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon's comment

Please don't. It's disruptive, against policy, and appears to be deliberately provocative. Others are working hard on a constructive solution so please join that effort. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not "disruptive", and I certainly don't intend it to be "provocative", except in the sense that it "provokes" people to fix unreferenced BLPs. It's applying WP:IAR in a manner you don't like, but that doesn't make it "disruptive." UnitAnode 23:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
IAR is not a free pass or a get out of jail free card. This is not about rules, but about the community. You are allowed to ignore rules, but we don't have an "Ignore what other editors are telling you" policy. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) IAR is only for finding ad-hoc exceptions to the rules in uncontroversial cases where the rules get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. To nip this in the bud, I and many other experienced editors dispute that the encyclopedia will be improved by adding PROD tags to articles that are not uncontroversial deletion targets, and think that will create considerable harm to the encyclopedia in terms of lost content, wasted time, and coverage gaps. What do you think is going to happen should you resume this? Surely you know you will be challenged, and if you force the point you and/or other editors will likely be blocked. Again, there are some serious community efforts to deal with the question of unsourced BLP articles. Your time, and that of others, is more effective there. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • IAR is for when rules get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. This is one of those times. Lar even tried to explain it to you above, but you're refusing to listen. I'm done discussing it. There's work to do. UnitAnode 23:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Volunteer editors do not appreciate actions that are designed as you state to provoke them to have to do some work. Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Leave me alone, Rob. If you're not interested in helping fix the problem, then feel free to butt out. UnitAnode 00:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
vis-a-vis warnings left on alternate account talk page)[4] consider this a final warning. You have just nominated nearly 100 articles for deletion, which is likely to be contested in most cases given your statements above. You have closed the door to further discussion. If you don't stop immediately I will report this at WP:AN/I, with a recommendation that all of your accounts be blocked. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
If you want to try to get me blocked for working on the unreferenced BLP problem, do what you have to do. This is important work, and a couple of guys who don't want me to do it aren't going to get me to stop. This is explicitly what IAR was created for. UnitAnode 00:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Should someone block Unitanode simply for prodding any number of unreferenced biographies, I will unblock. There is a mandate from ARBCOM to delete these articles so long as it is done in an orderly fashion, and prodding 100 or so articles certainly does not seem disorderly to me. Threats of blocking are totally unhelpful here. Kevin (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Please reconsider that threat - you're an involved party in this content matter and many have criticized your use of tools as it is. Not a whole lot of damage or wasted time has happened yet, but if an editor is breaking the rules and defying all appeals to stop, sooner or later something has to give. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not a threat at all. I made the note so that Unitanode can continue prodding without fear of being blocked. Kevin (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
If he continues he quite likely will be blocked. Are you going to wheel war over that to support your disputed content position (and yes, I know the precise definition of wheel war, but that's what it is). Don't encourage this. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
YOU may think so, but I seriously doubt that anyone is going to block me for PRODing BLPs that have been unsourced for 3 years. Especially since I have a plan and follow it. It's not "willy-nilly" or whatever else people try to describe it as. I don't think it would end well for an administrator blocking me for my actions. UnitAnode 04:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing bad PROD nominations

I've looked at your most recent PROD nominations and after reviewing the articles for BLP concerns removed the tags for several. Other editors have removed tags from others. You have indiscriminately nominated a number of articles, none of which are deletable under current policy, despite requests and warnings to stop. Again, please stop this behavior. There is an orderly process under discussion to deal with sourcing BLP articles. A number of editors have asked you to stop going your own way to create busywork for other editors. If you continue despite these concerns I will continue requesting that you be blocked to prevent further disruption to the project. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion involving you

I have started a discussion at the administrative noticeboard regarding you. You are welcome to participate. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unitanode_and_good_hand.2Fbad_hand. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry about your time, I also don't like how much time I am having to spend to prevent the good content from being thrown out with the bad. It is clear we disagree on content issues and I will leave the behavioral issues to people not involved with the dispute. Please understand that when you take a bold stance and take bold actions that people are likely to challenge that, if you find that a waste of time then you may want to reconsider your tactics. This is not personal to me, I am just working on an encyclopedia so I hope you also do not take it personally. For the record I think that BLP is a serious problem that needs attention, I just don't think unilateral action is the way to go when the community is actively working towards a solution. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The action is not "unilateral." There are others doing the same type of work, even right now. You just might not have noticed their work yet. UnitAnode 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
They need to stop too, and get with the program of building an encyclopedia through collaboration, not provocation. If I uncover some I'll add them to the AN/I report. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
No. We need more people ridding the project of the problem, not more people navel-gazing about it. And by all means, drag as many hard-working editors through the ANI mud as you feel necessary. Now, I really do need to get back to it. I've sifted through 120 or so of them, but there are 10s of thousands left to look through. Have you even looked at the list of my work I've made available on my userpage? I'm not just doing PROD work here. UnitAnode 01:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes I have. Overall you are doing good work, although I would suggest you will be more productive if you add citations than remove facts for obvious things like where someone was born. It is specifically the PROD nominations that are a problem. The community will in the next few days or weeks agree on a procedure to handle all 50,000 articles. That way will probably be a lot more efficient because it will probably involve some automated tools to tag articles, and also a lot more sensitive to finding ways to keep good information because people will have notice and an organized way to improve them. I doubt you can make much of a dent at the speed you're going but if you could, you would be taking away from the community the power to reach a consensus decision on how to do it. I'm serious in my suggestion that you will be more effective in cleaning up the encyclopedia on the deletion issue if you help out as part of the group. Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no "community" that is ever likely to agree to do anything. In the meantime, perhaps a few hundred victims of wikipedia's absurd attitude towards BLPs will have been spared some unnecessary distress. Seems worthwhile to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

I took a look at User:Unitanode/Notability (people) and left you a question at User talk:Unitanode/Notability (people).

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Josh Applebach

Hi: I've redirected it to the band of which he was a member, since by WP:MUSICBIO he doesn't have any other claim to notability. In certain cases where obvious redirect targets present themselves, you may wish to redirect in lieu of prodding. Cheers, RayTalk 22:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Albert K. Cohen

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Albert K. Cohen, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 03:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect?

I left a message at User talk:Unitasock. To avoid confusion, you should redirect that page to this one; that way, you get all your messages in one place. Chutznik (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Improvements at Global Warming

Do you have views on improving these GW articles? I am concerned that there is one way to keep the article the same and many ways to make improvements, but that division of effort in the latter is hampering progress.

Some active editors are now prepared to publicly support movement in specific directions, at a chart on my TalkPage here. If you would like to encourage this effort then please add your name to the parts you think most important. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Chong Chieng Jen

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Chong Chieng Jen, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 15:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Andy Barnes

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Andy Barnes, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 15:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Hans Beimler (screenwriter)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Hans Beimler (screenwriter), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 16:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP prod templates

Hi, I thought you might be interested in the new templates {{Prod blp}} and {{Dated prod blp}} I created. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Are these official? I've not done any work on templates during my time on the project, so I'm not certain how the whole process works for making them official for use. UnitAnode 21:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, can Twinkle be modified to use them? UnitAnode 21:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, "making them official" would probably happen once a relevant part of the RfC (such as Jehochman's proposal) or something on the new draft policy page Wikipedia:Unreferenced biographies of living people are declared consensus. Until then, I propose beginning to use them, under the proviso that there is as yet no "official" sanction against users removing them like normal prods. It's just everybody's individual responsibility. As for Twinkle, I'm sure that's technically possible, but we'd have to talk to the Twinkle programmers. I'm not very good on that sort of coding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It would help the sourcing work if you use this template. It keeps it separate from notability-related prods. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Prods

I have selectively removed several prod tags you have recently placed on articles that are not viable prod candidates for reasons previously discussed, and as noted on edit summaries on the articles in question. Per my earlier messages, your ongoing course of action is disruptive and a waste of both your time and others. I repeat my request that you stop, and will continue to suggest that your accounts be blocked if you choose to continue. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Stubbing

I am not sure the stubbing is a good idea. It is quite unreasonable to expect every sentence in a BLP to the sourced. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  • It is not "unreasonable" in any way to expect every sentence in a BLP to be backed up by the source. Stubbing to only what is supportable is the very least that should be done. It's irresponsible to have information in BLPs that is not able to be reliably sourced. That's called "original research", at best, "blatant hoax" at worst. UnitAnode 21:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Your opinion on the matter contradicts policy, so please cut it out. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
My opinion on the matter does not contradict policy. And I won't be "cutting it out", so your further posts here telling me to are kind of pointless (and time-wasting as well). What would "contradict" policy would be readding unsourced information to BLPs. UnitAnode 00:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Just giving you every last chance, and fair notice, to stop messing things up here per our customs about courtesy notices. You cannot now reasonably claim that you haven't been warned. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that things won't end well for any administrator who blocks me for the work I'm doing. And it may not end well for you if you keep harassing me about it. UnitAnode 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The hostile tone and veiled threat is unwelcome and does not seem likely to help your case. Appealing to an editor to stop disruption before they are blocked is not harassment, nor is asking for help stopping it. You don't seem to be open to any consideration that what you're doing is wrong so I'll limit further communication here unless you tell me you wish to see notices. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You guys have been harassing me for days. And the irony in your complaint of a "hostile tone", while you're basically threatening to drag me to ANI over-and-over-and-over is rich. Leave me alone. UnitAnode 01:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • And, if you're going to remove the PRODs, without even attempting to source them (as you have been doing), then yes, I'd like to receive notifications, so that I can AFD them, without having to sift your contributions. UnitAnode 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The difference is that you are systematically disrupting things in article space; we who are trying to fix the mess are not. I have been very reasonable, providing both warnings and earnest appeals for you to find a better use for your time. I may or may not remove more PROD tags if I see that you have added them to articles that are not deletable under current policy. There is nothing in policy requiring me to add sources but I have in fact been operating cautiously and only removing tags on articles that are verifiable and uncontroversial, and in some cases cleaning up a bit. Surely you must realize that you do not have anything close to consensus for what you are doing. If you want to believe otherwise that is on you. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Even if there's "no consensus" for it -- hell, even if there were consensus against it (which there's not) -- consensus does not trump BLP, period. UnitAnode 01:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
As you requested: Margit Fischer, Jay Furman, Michael Fortescue, Guillaume de Fondaumière, Andrine Flemmen. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Toshiyuki Kakuta

An article that you have been involved in editing, Toshiyuki Kakuta, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toshiyuki Kakuta. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RayTalk 19:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Wilbert Doneleyko

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Wilbert Doneleyko, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 01:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be crashing the human servers

Unitanode, even granting that every single thing you are doing is a positive contribution improving the encyclopedia, perfectly according to BLP, this can still be disruptive. Adding a million perfect articles about notable topics would be a great improvement, but not if done at a speed that would crash the servers. The volunteers here are no less a part of wikipedia than the computers it uses, and if one contributor's actions are exhausting many others' ability to keep up, it is time to slow down or stop.John Z (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Have you even bothered to look at the link I provide on my userpage to the work I've done? I have prodded 160 BLPs in about a 4 day span. I've also worked on about 60-70 other BLPs during that time. How is that "crashing he human servers"? Is it pissing some people off? Sure. Is it thus unwise? Hardly. Look at my work before chastising me. UnitAnode 01:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I think the proof is the number of people who have asked you to slow down; a consensus or pretty near. The human servers are straining, and particularly about your edits. What you are doing could be OK and handleable in a normal context, but this is an extremely high load period. Everything system dealing with such edits is extremely, unprecedentedly overloaded at the moment. In this context it makes good sense to start looking at the leading strains on the system first, even if they might not be enough to strain the system in normal times.John Z (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I think you have to consider the source. The people actually doing the fixing aren't complaining. It's people like Off2 et all that are complaining for the most part (present company excepted) ++Lar: t/c 04:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Akira Endo (conductor)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Akira Endo (conductor), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 02:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you please explain why you prodded for deletion this article? Akira_Endo_(conductor) It looks like a very good article to me? Off2riorob (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are two citations and a link to his profile at the University of Colarado, are you going to send it to AFD then? Off2riorob (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course not. When people actually fix the problem, it doesn't need to be deleted. Now, I'm really tired of your badgering. Unless you're notifying me of deprodding an article, please don't post to my talkpage again. UnitAnode 02:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

prod of Biboy Enriquez

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Biboy Enriquez, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! RayTalk 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Donna Dickenson

I can't quite understand what you've done with this BLP of a philosopher. You removed the unsourced tag, but didn't add any sources, removed some of the more pertinent details—such as where she studied, her academic appointments, and the scholarly books she's published, though it's easy to source that stuff e.g. [5]— but left some of the less important material in, also unsourced. Can you say what the aim was? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Hmm... I'm wondering whether I mistook the EL for a semblance of a reference? Whatever the case, it was a mistake, for certain. I can readd the tag -- and potentially PROD it as unsourced -- or do you want to do that? UnitAnode 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Additionally, is donnadickenson.com really an RS for the Donna Dickenson article? UnitAnode 04:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I've tidied it a bit and added some refs. [6] We could use some more, but there's no doubt about her notability, and there doesn't seem to be anything inaccurate in it. If I have time next week, I'll dig up some more secondary sources. I think it started life as a translation of this from the Dutch WP. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. I apologize for the mistake. UnitAnode 04:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't apologize, it's fine. I know it's annoying and dodgy to have BLPs with no sources. The problem here seems to have arisen because it was translated directly from another Wikipedia, so the translator probably though it wasn't down to him to add sources too. And so it goes. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
If you remember, would you mind dropping me a note when you finish up? I'd be interested to see what becomes of it. UnitAnode 04:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I will, but don't expect anything grand. I'm just going to do the basics. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Dunaway

I hope you feel better soon. In the meanwhile, I de-prodded this stub. He wrote one of the the biggest rock music hits of all time. He was a member of The Spiders with Alice Cooper, so he easily passes WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A lesson I learned along the way

Long ago, I saw this funny little European film that has stuck with me for...well, a very long time, especially one song from it. You can see it here on Youtube. The philosophy espoused is, I suspect, part of what attracted me to this project. "If you want your dream to be..." - well, today's dream is to source a portion of the BLP articles, or otherwise manage them. "Take your time, go slowly..." - please remember that you're one voice in this chorus, and as each day passes, more and more are joining in. You've worked on over 200 articles, and forwarded a large chunk of them for further action; however, so have many others, and the people at the end of the process haven't quite caught up with recent events.

I'd like to encourage you to "Do few things, but do them well" as part of the larger team. Please slow down a bit so that others can work beside you without being overwhelmed. "Small beginnings, greater ends" is an important concept, especially now as the entire project starts gearing up to handle these challenges. It's early days, and while there is an imperative to improvement, the timelines and processes are still being developed.

Suggestion: Limit yourself to, say, no more than 25 proposed deletions/CSDs/AfDs per day, at least until there is an opportunity to establish some structure. Of course, you can source as many articles as you like! I hope you will take this in the spirit it is intended: it is good to have you aboard, working to improve the project. It's also important to make sure the project can keep up with you.

Best, Risker (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

About the prodding

Look, I'm the one who first suggested (on ANI, when this whole brouhaha began 75 million kilobytes ago) the idea of making it verboten to remove prods on unsourced BLPs, thus resulting in deletion after one week if an article was not sourced. I still support that and think the work you are doing right now is ultimately very important. But frankly your approach at the moment strikes me as ill advised, and you're actually likely doing the "cause" (which is righteous) more harm than good. You know very well that there are ongoing discussions where it seems there is a strongly developing consensus to put in place a more systematic way to do what you are doing. Mass prodding (and, more importantly, doing it in an at least somewhat sloppy way and basically telling other editors to buzz off/that you don't give a damn what they think) is not a good move while we're still trying to cement a consensus that will actually deal with the whole lot of unsourced BLPs. There's 50,000 of them, you're not going to fix this by yourself (or with a few friends), and there's no need for you to do some BOLD action to stir the pot and get things moving—some admins already did that and things are moving.

Your actions are beginning to put a very small dent into a very large problem, but they are uncoordinated and thus less effective (there's a risk of re-duplication of effort later), and they are also making some people angry (I think understandably) while playing into the fears (which I do not remotely share) of the editors who worry that prodding unsourced BLPs as a form of cleanup is just a way for some extremists to go rogue and get a bunch of stuff deleted because they are deletionists. You can lament and decry the fact that Wikipedia works by consensus, but right or wrong the fact is that it does, and if you really want to address the problem of unsourced BLPs (and indeed the entire BLP problem) you'll need a whole lot of helpers on board. Ignoring what other editors are saying (many in good faith) and promising to press on just because you know you are "right" is the kind of thing that can put a serious cramp in the collective effort that seems just about to get underway.

I don't necessarily expect you to care what I'm saying here since you've stated you'll continue as you have been regardless of input from your fellow editors, but it would be great if you could stop and consider the possibility that you're not helping as much as you think you are. Zealotry and a single-minded approach are not necessarily substitutes for thoughtfulness when it comes to fixing problems. Finally if you think I'm full of crap with this missive (and we certainly can't rule that out!...like anyone I can be full of crap from time to time), then what Risker just said. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

You know what? I've worked my ass off to be above-board with my work, when I didn't have to be. I've developed a strategy, clearly outlined on my userpage, that makes it easy for anyone who cares to know exactly what I'm doing, and why I'm doing it. I've tried to be pretty careful with the tags I've placed, and have not simply blindly paced PROD tags on the articles in the unsourced category. And still, people accuse me of being "indiscriminate", and of doing "more harm than good." That's laughable, as simply looking at the results' (and not the braying mob that is ANI) would show you that there have been many articles improved by folks who are actually interested in adding sources to unsourced BLPs. Where is the harm in that? And where is the harm in allowing my work to continue at least until the discussion ad nauseum is completed?

There's nothing haphazard about what I'm doing. Anyone willing to click my userpage, and read my rationale and strategy would know that. Hell, I even posted some rudimentary statistics to my userpage, so that it would be apparent that I'm not even working all that fast. Basically, it boils down to about 42 PRODs per day, and about 20 articles where I do other work, and remove the unsourced tag. It's systematic, useful, and not in any way against policy -- so I guess it must be wrong.

Well, I don't need this. While the PRODing I've done has clearly been making some progress, I'm really tired of being hounded about it. So congratulations to those of you who have been my most dogged pursuers. These last two commentators at my talkpage have put it over the edge for me. While I'm sure they were acting in complete good faith, their posts are the straw that breaks this camel's back. You lot can have the mess that is this problem. I'll let this discussion take its course, and in the meantime, the unsourced BLPs from March 2007 will simply languish for a few weeks. I'm simply not going to put some arbitrary editing throttle (as Risker proposed) on my work. It makes no sense to do so, when I haven't been working that quickly to begin with, and seems to be simply a way of "quieting the hounds" at ANI. There's no excuse for the world's largest encyclopedia to have any unsourced articles, more or less biographies of living people. There's even less of an excuse to badger someone who's actually wading in to work on the problem into stopping. But what's done is done. Have fun figuring out a "solution." I hope it doesn't take you all too long. UnitAnode 12:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh. These actions are more or less condoned by ArbCom, an RfC, and (if you put weight on it) Jimbo. As the military types would say, the naysayers can go pound sand. Don't let em get ya down. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
After the two posts from R and BTP, meh just about summarizes how I feel about the entire issue. UnitAnode 13:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Or, better even, feh... UnitAnode 13:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with what you were doing, but given how controversial it was perhaps we should wait till we can work out a better way of implementing this sort of thing. But as one who went around unilaterally deleting "fair use" TIME magazine covers (which caused a huge amount of controversy), I largely support your actions. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Good advice...

[7]. I'm close to heeding it. ATren (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  • It's ironic that I find myself in this position. Until the deception evident in those emails came out, my view was that global warming was a settled fact. Now I see myself in kind of a limbo of sorts. It's hard to know what you can trust from the "official" voices, but I remain unconvinced that nothing is happening. As for the on-wiki issues, the nearly universal refusal to present both sides of the argument fairly and without emotion, is a huge problem. But there's enough "pushback" from the pro-AGW crowd, that I've come to believe that no real change is possible. So, it's better to let the bias in those articles -- and the attending embarrassment to the project -- build, until the powers-that-be develop the will to deal with the issue. UnitAnode 21:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • For me, the POV push here is as repulsive as climategate. More than anything, I am repulsed by arrogant scientists who believe there can be no way but their way, and in that respect the GW cabal here is no different than the climategate scientists. Climate science seems to be full of closed minded "my way or the highway" types. In some ways, I expect such behavior from the skeptic side - I'm always suspect of science which is intertwined with big corporate money - but it absolutely repulses me coming from the pro-AGW side, because I really identify more with that side. I hold them to a higher standard. Now, strictly speaking, I don't give a crap about GW per se -- they can debate tree rings and hockey sticks to their hearts' content, I don't really care -- but I do sympathize with many of the sustainability and environmental goals of the pro-AGW side, and as such, I feel like I have a shared sense of purpose with them. The fact that they would be the abusers here on wikipedia (and apparently, out there in the real world, as climategate showed) is disgusting to me. But in any case, I agree with you: eventually it will all come out. I'm not going to spend any more time trying to fix it. ATren (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool word

Thanks for expanding my vocabulary. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

my de prods

Are you following my de prods and stubbifying them? Just asking, I hope you can accept a friendly hello from me and allow me to post here, if not sorry, Off2riorob (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Those are PRODs that I placed, so I'm simply following up on the changes that were made, as far as references go, and reducing them down to what has been sourced. I'm also updating my workpage with the results of the PRODs I placed as well. UnitAnode 05:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll take that as an acceptance of my friendly hello then, cool. Off2riorob (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
As long as you reference the BLPs, I have no problem with a PROD removal. At first glance, it appears that my PRODing campaign has been at least mildly successful. Most people that removed them at least placed a source. I can't say that for everyone, but for those that did, it's good work. UnitAnode 05:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, yea..but its desperate measures, one citation and a stub is close to worthless to the reader, a bit of a waste of energy really, might as well of just deleted it without the disruption. (my new position)Off2riorob (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter to me which happens. But everything in this barely-notable BLPs needs to be carefully sourced. UnitAnode 06:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, to be inline with policy, we have become soft in our acceptance of uncited content. I have not voted but, how it the main leader of choice going to be? and when will it be started? Off2riorob (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're asking. UnitAnode 06:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries, they are discussing various options and voting for their preference, I just thought you might know how the consensus forming is going and when the process will begin again? Off2riorob (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I doubt very seriously that anything resembling "consensus" will result from the RFC. Thus, as SirFozzie has stated, I assume it will revert back to where it stood after the Arbcom motion. UnitAnode 06:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I went there and it was so confusing I had no idea what was going on and left, thanks for the chat..see you later. Off2riorob (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I am suprised that he didn't mention this edit on his talkpagefrom yesterday in the report, talking about other editors as idiots. Off2riorob (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
You should post that diff there, with your explanation. UnitAnode 08:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I am starting to think that a second opinion may be necessary, what I see as clear cut violation of restrictions are being ignored. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
All I ask for is cards from the top of the pack, that is not too much to expect is it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility, edit warring

This kind of behavior[8][9] is unacceptable. Please stop now, or we're going back to WP:AN/I where this belongs. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As I commented at my talk page, Unitanode should not characterize restoration of unsourced material as "vandalism". He can characterize it as unacceptable, as against policy, as disruptive, as something that could lead to a block if it's repeated... those are all accurate descriptions. But, it's not vandalism. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • My apologies, then, for describing the addition of unsourced material -- and the attenuating refusal to provide sources -- as vandalism. That said, stop replacing unsourced material in BLPs without providing sources. UnitAnode 19:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Cut it out, now. Consider this a final warning. I am editing this article. One more harassment like this,[10] or any further disruption on the BLP front, and I will file an AN/I report without further ado. I also note that you seem to be at WP:3RR on this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
You readded a lot of unsourced material. I have no problem with the readdition, if and when you've sourced it. Save your "final warnings" and other posturing for someone else. Placing a CONSTRUCTION tag isn't an excuse to leave unsourced material in while you "work." UnitAnode 21:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It is not your place to tell me what to do. Again, stop harassing me. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, please. How is removing unsourced material from an article "harassing" you? You've readded it in a lot of places. Removing such material is the only acceptable option, per BLP.
Let's not play childish games here. You know you were just being vexatious, wikilawyering aside. You knew I was actively editing an article, with an inuse tag, and you gutted it to try to prove your silly point. I don't have much desire to discuss this with you, particularly given your hostile way of going about this. I'm cleaning up messes that you are creating. The really strange part is that you seem to have convinced yourself you're doing the right thing. Just back off, or we will be before AN/I again. Last time there you did not have a whole lot of support. I doubt people will think highly of ongoing edit warring or harassment. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I was not "just being vexatious." You readded a lot of unsourced material, and then placed the INUSE tag. Why did you not simply readd the material after sourcing it? I'm very tired of your accusations. If either of us is "harassing" the other, it's you harassing me, and it needs to stop. UnitAnode 22:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I edit as I best see fit. You're holding me up to a ridiculous standard, and you've taken it upon yourself to correct me when I don't please that whim. I shouldn't have to explain to you why people save articles several times in intermediate form while working on them. You must know that when you edit an article while someone has an inuse tag you are going to cause edit conflicts, which is exactly what you did. Between that, and having to tell you to get off my case, fixing the article to meet your silly standard too several times longer than it should have. You're setting up a lose-lose situation. Ignore you and you go out destroying articles by removing uncontroversial easily verifiable information. Try to source them and you interfere. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, cut the bullshit. You readded a bunch of unsourced material before you had sourced it. You shouldn't have done that. I fixed it. You placed your edit a full 13 minutes after I removed the unsourced portions. I'm not going to allow you to get away with claiming that I "go out destroying articles." That's utter bullshit. I remove unsourced material from BLPs. I place PROD tags, or AFD other unsourced BLPs. You may not like that, but you will not continue casting aspersions on my motives in this way. At least not at this page. The next time you do, it will simply be rolled back as I would someone who placed graffiti here. Any outsider watching this back-and-forth can tell from where the harassment originates. I have ONE thread on this talkpage currently that is in any way contentious. You're it. Perhaps a mirror would be in order, Wikidemon. UnitAnode 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
That is very rude. I've told you what I need to tell you - if any of this continues we can talk about it at AN/I. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't particularly care what you find "rude" at this point. You're the only person offering such harangues at my talkpage right now. As I said, perhaps a look in the mirror would be in order. And your vague threats of taking me to ANI are getting quite old. ANI is a dramapit, and little more than that.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Unitanode/Archive_3&oldid=1150991703"