User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2012/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poop patrol

Hi Delta Quad, good luck in the Arb elections. While you are waiting for the results is there any chance of a Poop patrol run? ϢereSpielChequers 10:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it should be  Done by now. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 14:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks, and thanks for all your help this year. Sorry about the election result, I voted for you. ϢereSpielChequers 01:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

ready when you are for the next weekly run. ϢereSpielChequers 13:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Deltaquad. Ready when you are:) Can we put this onto a weekly regular cycle? ϢereSpielChequers 01:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. I did set a run going, not sure how much it worked though. I'll check on it later today. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 15:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin abuse!

The Admin's Barnstar
For having the cojones to close the tool apprenticeship trial RFC when no-one else would, you get this barnstar. Happy editing :) (Made you jump didn't I?) :P Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 22:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Blacklist

Can I add something more to the DeltaQuadBot blacklist.--Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 07:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I prefer this be taken up @ WT:UAA as I don't frequent UAA much right now, and others would know better, also, any admin is encouraged to edit the blacklist whitelist and similiar list. Hope this helps, -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 09:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Similar

Hi, I added some letters from Cherokee syllabary – hope that helps. It Is Me Here t / c 00:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition. :) -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 04:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I've added some more, but this is rather tiring, and, I feel, not well-suited to a human editor. Would you mind if I submitted a request at WP:BTR for a bot to "sync" the homoglyphs at User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Similar and MediaWiki:Titleblacklist? It Is Me Here t / c 16:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Draft request:

Vandals can disrupt Wikipedia by creating offensive page names, avoiding automatic detection by using obscure characters which might in reality pertain to mathematical equations or come from some rare language, but which are visually similar enough to English letters for readers to recognise that the page name is abusive. I feel that our main weapon against such vandalism: homoglyph lists: is currently in need of better coordination and organisation. Such equivalence classes are currently strewn about in various locations such as MediaWiki:Titleblacklist and User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Similar, and there is no communication between these. For example, if someone working on the blacklist should discover an obscure character that looks like an "A" and therefore adds it to the regex, this revision will not automatically benefit WP:UAA or the abuse filter. I feel that it would be productive to have a bot maintain and "sync" (à la Dropbox) these glyph equivalence classes, so that a new addition in one area benefits all the areas which stand to benefit from it. I would also like case sensitivity to be an option across the board (since, for example, Υ looks like a "Y" but υ looks like a "u"). It would also be useful if the bot could search for and remove duplicates (except when the upper-case and lower-case glyphs are in different lists) and possibly add <!-- comments --> containing the Unicode number or relevant article name for each glyph, so that it is easy for editors to find where the characters have come from. It may also be useful to have the bot sort the characters within a list in some way (by Unicode number, say), to make it easier to find one or check if one is missing.

That would be my short-term request. As a longer-term solution, perhaps some sort of central list of equivalence classes could be set up (with the ability to discuss additions and changes on the talk page, as with e.g. MediaWiki talk:Bad image list), so that then offensive strings could be set locally (for user names, new article titles, page move destinations or whatever), but without the faff of searching for and entering homoglyphs in each separate area, so that something like {{homoglyph|fuck}} would mean banning or flagging up or whatever every permutation of a homoglyph of "F" (as defined in this new central list), followed by a homoglyph of "U", etc. Or, by extension, {{homoglyph*|fuck}}, say, could pick up strings with one or more "F"-like glyphs of any kind, followed by one or more "U"s, and so on.

It Is Me Here t / c 17:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem, feel free to go ahead and ask. One thing I will note is that the Blacklist, Whitelist, and Similar list are very syntax sensitive right now, and any changes to the syntax of the page, like comments, I would need to know about before implementation. Not so sure what you mean on the second part of that though, but if I understand, my comment that I just made is my reply. :) -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 22:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks; based on your input, I have submitted a more modest request (it seems it would be best to start with that and then see how things go from there). It Is Me Here t / c 23:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep for reference, holding archive. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 20:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report

User:DeltaQuad/talkdone

Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report

We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report.

Highlights
  • Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261
  • Report on coordinators' elections
  • Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives
  • Guild Plans for 2012
  • Requests page report
  • Sign up for the January 2012 Backlog elimination drive!


Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here
On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012!
– Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

User:DeltaQuad/talkdone

AE

Thanks for closing that one, it was a tough one and up for a while. I agree with your well-worded closing action. --WGFinley (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 15:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A case right below appears to be ready for a close as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Already noted. Just didn't want my objectivity to be lost because of the notice at the top of this talkpage. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 17:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There is already 1RR on all I/P articles.--Shrike (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there needs to be some clarification for Netzer's sake. Is it a 5 month or 4 month probation? Are you suggesting that Netzer have a personal 1RR restriction with more time required between reverts? Does the topic ban include a ban on all discussion of the Jerusalem subject anywhere to be broadly construed? Seems Netzer would need to be aware of these caveats.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 Done Shrike, thanks, not being a regular contributor I didn't know about that specific remedy. The Devil's Advocate, the top of my talkpage here explains the reason for this, I have cleared it up and logged it now. My apologies for any confusion I caused with this. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 19:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I usually don't pay attention to those sorts of things on the top of talk pages so I missed it. :)--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the extra mention of 1RR was necessary, especially since Netzer did not technically violate it. The only reason 1RR would need to be mentioned in this case is if you wanted to make the time allowed between reverts longer.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding merge of Indophobia

{{hat|1=Were not continuing the debate here, the discussion was closed...there's a section below asking for my input, i'll answer that, and then we can move on. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 22:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)}} Hi, I have been developing Indophobia in Pakistan, cleaning it up and finding sources for it. I have just found a major contemporary source. However, you had just closed the discussion on the talk page. Thank you for participating neutrally in the process.

I do know that contrary to the outright allegations (blatantly without proof in some cases) (and without any other effort to sort out issues except to merge the two), that there is scope to write a concise, well-referenced, NPOV article on the topic which has enough scope on its own.

First Question: I need to work on Indophobia in Pakistan to address the concerns already present on the talk page. I intend to work on it at its present site and merge it with Indophobia once the detractors remove the NPOV tag. Is this acceptable?

An amount of material is coming my way as I have booked library books in the University of Pune which will come to me as has Lieven's book. This will increase the amount of material such that Indophobia in Pakistan will dwarf the rest of the article Indophobia in the near future, say a couple of months down the line. At that point of time Indophobia in Pakistan will merit an article once again.

Second Question: At that stage will it require a full-fledged consensus to segregate the article or can it be done routinely as is done elsewhere?

Request you to please recommend a course of action. AshLin (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have notified TopGun of this post vide your talk page edit banner. AshLin (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Will respond tomorrow. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 09:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
AshLin, even when you go and create that article again, you need to take into account the consensus which currently is that it should be merged, regardless of it's size or content. This is because the article is a WP:POVFORK and can never be neutral (the title itself gives it away). Thus, I just want to let you know that starting it again still puts it liable for anyone else to raise objections on the same grounds and point to the majority of consensus which opposes it as a seperate article. Having an Indophobia in Pakistan page opens up all sorts of pandora boxes, including a platform for POV-pushers and the similiar justification of writing a Pakistanophobia in India article. If it does end up being seperated, I'd rather think it a better idea to have a two-way article (maybe something like Social relations between India and Pakistan etc.) which discusses Indophobia in Pakistan as well as Pakistanophobia in India within the same article. Such an idea appears more balanced and WP:NPOV, IMHO. Mar4d (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Your point about consensus is well taken. Your suggestion of dual article is also worthy of consideration. However, in my opinion, the article Indophobia in Pakistan is neither POV nor a fork, no matter how much you assert it unless you provide evidence. And if it is either, remedies exist to get rid of the tainting POV content or the material which makes it differ from the main article. The remedy for either situation is not "merger". if Indophobia in Pakistan took a different line from Indophobia article, then one could say its a fork. Secondly saying that the whole article is POV should equally apply to Pakophobia, Pakophilia, besides Indophobia. It is POV if its content is proven to be as per a single point of view. That is not the case. In addition, only one editor gave a few of his concerns and these are being acted on. Once the article is NPOV I intend to ask neutral opinion to substantiate both these claims i.e. it is POV and that it is a fork. AshLin (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me of this discussion. As the nominator, I can confidently tell you that the article's separate existence was challenged in the RFC as it was only created as a tit for tat action as well as its other implications, size of the main article, WP:WEIGHT, and then it's own content. I don't think the article will be able to split again just on the basis of content. You'll have to change the consensus that merged it. Anyhow, I've left you a reply on Talk:Indophobia as well. You can ofcourse manage it undisturbed in your user sandbox in it's current form or download the version of the article for yourself if you want. Starting the discussion on the split or why that article needs to be separate at this moment would be of no use since we just had that and closed it - also see Mar4d's comment which I had in mind while nominating as well as a reply to your comment here. DQ's remarks on this would be appreciated. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey TopGun, was partly waiting for you to respond to this, partly dealing with other stuff, and my apologies to those who commented for my delay. I thank you for your respect of consensus Ashlin, but in this case, I think the consensus has spoken for the time being, note though that that`s changeable with a new consensus. I`d like to encourage you to try a userspace draft, I would recommend though that you spend a while looking it over, just to be sure that it`s good to go, and to not look like were trying to reshift consensus back fast again. I have also reread over the article, and it looks pretty full of a one sided view. I won`t go into the dispute, and you probably have some good sources, but in this case, I think a collaborative review for a new consensus is the best option for this. As for your first question, the article needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later, so I encourage you to move it to your userspace and work on it as soon as the merger is complete, but a separate discussion at this time seems counter-productive to the efforts of the merge. Hope I have answered the questions here. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 19:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for waiting. Agreed and much appreciated. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been finding it difficult to understand what exactly people mean by saying Indophobia in Pakistan being POV and one-sided. The way I see it:

  • It is a well-documented phenomenon and manifest in enough parts of Pakistani society, politics and contemporary culture to merit an article of its own. Do they mean that its existence as a phenomenon is contested and that doubts of its existence do not appear in the article?
  • Indophobia is a far larger phenomenon in Pakistan than in other places hence the amount of material meriting a seperate article. Do thy mean that just because the article deals with Indophobia in Pakistan, a country with traditional history of antagonism to India, it is POV?
  • Do they mean that the sources are being depicted in NPOV fashion? I always tend to use internet based sources in general. Where my sources are offline and available with me, I am perfectly willing to webcite a few pages for specific purpose of verification. During verification, if it is found that something has been portrayed incorrectly by me, I may be informed.
  • What do they mean by cherry-picking of sources? The sources are a mix of Indian, Pakistani & foreign. If I am cherry-picking what aspect or source did I leave out? To them, my question is why are they not adding the other point of view which they should AGF that I may not have access to.

As far as I know, I can add a section on ameliorating influences such as the "Aman ki Asha" initiative to balance out this accusation. But in the absence of specific input and presence of generic assertions only such as "POV", "cherry-picking" etc by other editors, I tend to regard this as another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I request Mar4D, TopGun to elucudate logically and rationally their concerns, and I specially request you to help me understand their point of view and to convince me of the merit in their argument if any. AshLin (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now it is exactly happening as DQ said, this discussion is becoming a counter productive fork/WP:POINT of the closed one (though I don't assume you are doing that on purpose). I think I represented my views on the article and its issues in much detail. You came to its editing quite late and maybe missed some details, so I'll refer. Wikireader41 created the article after he failed to keep some forking content (unrelated to this) to the main article. Infact he said that he would do this in that discussion. This was a blatant badfaith creation and had many inherent issues. The reasons were all projecting towards a bias, there were other details which were either pointed out on talk page or in merger discussion. So, I do assume good faith here for you, but not for the creator (who protested to the building consensus with personal attacks in the RFC and else where as well). Cherry picking issues are the same, and I'd rather discuss them when adjusting that content in the Pakistan section of the main article. You might get my views known better while adjusting that rather than convincing you for a closed discussion. Your mention here of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (after a community consensus via RFC) seems to be completely counter to your respect of consensus as it was not just mine and Mar4d's (who actually came quite late) views. We did consider it's notability while giving our comments and so did others and it happens to be of just as much weight as a section of the article. DQ might tell you this in a better way as an uninvolved and unattached editor. At the moment this debate is actually what liking might cover since consensus is not always unanimous, though I still assume you do respect the consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
A genuine attempt at trying to understand the issue involved is seen as non-productive continuation of a closed argument. That too when I have already accepted the consensus. You may feel that you have represented your views but if I dont understand them or seek to understand them, you dont like it, I see. On the contrary, I always find it productive to try to understand other's view point. No matter, please do not feel obliged to try to help me understand the issue better. I shall approach Deltaquad for his view on the affair. AshLin (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

|}

Clarification regarding POV, Fork etc (for Deltaquad only)

I have been finding it difficult to understand what exactly people mean by saying Indophobia in Pakistan being POV and one-sided. The way I see it:

  • It is a well-documented phenomenon and manifest in enough parts of Pakistani society, politics and contemporary culture to merit an article of its own. Do you feel that its existence as a phenomenon is contested and that doubts of its existence do not appear in the article?
  • Indophobia is a far larger phenomenon in Pakistan than in other places hence the amount of material meriting a seperate article. Are you of the opinion that just because the article deals with Indophobia in Pakistan, a country with traditional history of antagonism to India, it is POV?
  • Do you feel that the sources being cited are being depicted in NPOV fashion? I tend to mostly use internet based sources in general which are mostly verifiable. Where my sources are offline and available with me, I am perfectly willing to webcite a few pages for specific purpose of verification. During verification, if it is found that something has been portrayed incorrectly by me, please let me know so that I may correct my bias.
  • What do you think constitutes cherry-picking of sources? The sources are a mix of Indian, Pakistani & foreign. If the sources are "cherry-picked" by me or previous editors, how do I correct for this bias?

As far as I know, I can add a section on ameliorating influences such as the "Aman ki Asha" initiative to balance out this accusation. But in the absence of specific input and presence of generic assertions only such as "POV", "cherry-picking" etc by other editors (especially when asked for), I tend to regard this as another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which may be an injustice to them on their part).

My aim was not to continue to discuss a closed case and overturn the merger, but just to understand what a number of editors of the opposed viewpoint to mine actually mean. Is that wrong to wish that? I specially request YOU to help me understand the different point of view from mine as you see it. AshLin (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

My first note is that i'm not stepping into the debate that I closed. In my close I did not state anything about the sources, and I have not specifically reviewed the sources. What I was referring to with the NPOV issues was the text. A lot of the article has paragraphs stating "according to x" according to...yes, ok, it's according to, but then is this not just a synthesis of opinions? I'm surprised with all these quotes that seemed to be dropped left and right and take up quite a few lines. Also, "The fake cables were believed to have been planted by Inter-Services Intelligence." was this ever proven? It tends to implicate that they did plant it, but has no evidence stated to back it up in the article. Honestly the whole article seems more like a news story with all the quotes, or a documentary with a view. I believe I have just dragged myself into this dispute, but I don't intend to continue it. That is why I closed and commented on the neutrality issues. In no way is this an 'I don't like it' closure. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 23:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I do understand that you closed the discussion not on a WP:IDONTLIKE IT basis. I never meant to imply that you did so. I also understand that the merger has been passed since a majority of editors voted and since the contents in its present form obviously draw NPOV concerns not just from readers opposing my viewpoint but also by neutral readers like you. My sole purpose is not to contest this merger but to make this article NPOV which I have repeatedly stated. ::Unfortunately, the way I read WP:FORK, I find that the overall material qualifies as a content fork expansion and not in my opinion as a POV fork since in both the article Indophobia and Indophobia in Pakistan have the same view, that Indophobia exists in Pakistan, except that it is propogated in greater detail in the latter. After reading Antisemitism in Pakistan, I cannot understand why that article should not be similarly objected to and merged in Antisemitism just as has been done in this case.
Thank you for your inputs. I shall consider those carefully. I wish you had immersed yourself in this article in greater depth as I dearly would have appreciated more feedback on the questions which arose in my mind and which I posed above. I would be grateful for any other inputs from you in this regard in the future should you happen to have them. Thank you for participating in contentious debates such as these. Happy editting. AshLin (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC).

Same IP

The same IP as this one from 1 week ago is evading his block with this IP. Can you re-block him please? Pass a Method talk 11:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Layed out another rangeblock, sadly I couldn't block the root range as it's too big, but let me know if they come back and we'll play whack a mole. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 18:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your block of Chipmunkdavis

I noticed your 24-hour block on Chipmunkdavis. (I just came across this because his page is on my watchlist. I have no idea why it is, but I have several thousand pages watched by this point, so that doens't mean anything one way or the other.) One could certainly say he was edit-warring, but I don't see any 3RR issue, and they are clearly good-faith edits and are explained in edit summaries.

Chipmunkdavis has been editing since 2009 with no prior blocks. I haven't analyzed his prior editing exhaustively, but it looks to me like this might possibly have been a situation where a talkpage note to the editor would have addressed the issue without needing to block. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and thanks for all your work around the project (including, ironically in this context, on the unblock-l list). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi. I would second Newyorkbrad in this request and in fact had already sent an email to HelloAnnyong about this block. Here is an edited version of what I wrote to HelloAnnyong about Chipmunkdavis:

I see that DeltaQuad has just blocked him for 24 hours.

He was not warned. He made 3 reverts on January 6 and 2 reverts on January 8.

This is his first ever block and, as you have witnessed, Andriabenia is an extremely problematic user. I wonder whether, in the circumstances, where no warning was given and the editing of Andriabenia was so disruptive, the block could be lifted early?

If Andriabenia is indeed Satt2, as I suspect, there has been a long history of that user posting images of dead squirrels on Chipmunksdavis's user talk page. Also several of the sockpuppet usernames were attacks on Chipmunkdavis. He seems to be an unfortunate casualty of today's events. I don't know him very well, but he is one of the regular watchers of general articles to do with Europe and Asia.

Mathsci (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The annotations are not quite correct on WP:AN3 at the moment since Chipmunkdavis was not blocked for edits to Tornike (name), but to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. My additions to the headers probably confused the issue and I apologize for that. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)x3 @NYB Your right in the fact that 3RR was not violated, it wasn't violated for either user editing warring on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. I was also blocking Andriabenia (talk · contribs) in this case. The reason I blocked Chipmunkdavis was that he clearly knows that edit warring is a policy (nevermind he's been around long enough to know about it), in which he was violating. He was not warned before the block that is true, maybe that should have been done, but there are also other noticeboards to report such issues with other editors such as edit warring. You actually hit one of my borderline decisions here. As I write this message I am seeing how I'm less and less able to justify my actions here. With your comment in regards to talking it out, that's very true I probally should have tried that option first. Now that i've written out my justification for this, i'm unblocking him. @Mathsci We need to separate the fact that Andriabenia is under investigation right now, and that's what I did in issuing the blocks. They are two different issues. Just because someone else is disupting, it doesn't give someone else the right to violate policies. Also the blocking admin should be consulted first before going to another administrator and appealing it there. Re. AN3 Your right I was trying to close 3 reports and got them all confused especially with the edit conflicting. I'll go back and fix that in a few minutes. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for being extremely fair here. Until Newyorkbrad posted here, I was unsure what I could do, hence the email (not a request) to HelloAnnyong, who was following things (the above is a edited version). I agree that things were very confused and I hope that everything sorts itself out now. Thanks again for your very swift help. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Chipmunkdavis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Protection of 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season

I see you protected the 2012 Novak Djokovic tennis season article which is fine. But the dispute also spills onto the 2012 Novak Djokovic tennis season so could you please protect that one as well. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Sorry that one is out of the protection policy as there is no clearly disruptive edit war yet, though I would encourage talking with users before it gets there. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 20:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

EFD

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mlpearc powwow 22:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Requesting re-opening of SPI

You closed this SPI, but new socking that may warrant CU is happening.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

close

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meyhem Lauren i think this close was an error, in that it was unreasonably hasty. discussion had been open just 11 days, only recently relisted, and was ongoing, and far from consensus. hobbes and i were exchanging replies only the day before (new year's eve!) i find it very frustrating when after a relist an admin swoops in to close with discussion ongoing. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your discussion actually looked over when I closed it (4 days of silence, 2 if you count the last !vote), and 7 days was the standard time, it was relisted, but I felt there was enough to close it at the time. If you would like to try a userspace draft with an account, I wouldn't be opposed at all. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 03:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're trying to say. The last !vote was the same day as your close.[1] My last comments, since you reference "your discussion", were new year's eve, the day before your close. It is again frustrating to return to this page three days later only to be forced to repeat myself. "I felt there was enough to close" is not a helpful account. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, both my comment and my second look occurred at a time when I was not that with it. I have restored the page, and reverted my close. Looking it over it could use a little more opinion before a close. I will note though that other people do not have to fix the issue for you, we all have our own work that we do here on Wikipedia. My apologies for the early close. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but i believe old discussions have now run cold. i appreciate the re-open tho. once again, the notion that i expect other people to fix issues for me is a misread: that is jeske's (Jeremy's) position, and his sole !vote rationale. however, why i should work on articles that may be deleted anyway is beyond me; the onus on me is to justify my !vote, nothing more. the charge was non-notability by wikipedia's definition of the term -- i sought to demonstrate notability, thus justifying my !vote. Quite simple. Thanks again, and more generally, i hope you're feeling better. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC closes

Hi DeltaQuad. Thank you for the numerous closes of RfCs you've made the past few weeks. Your efforts do not go unappreciated. Cunard (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and letting me know, it's always good to know i'm doing a good job :) -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 02:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Thanks for closure

Hi DQ, I just wanted to thank you for closing my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship. I realise it was a daunting load of text to read and I think the outcome was reasonable and what I expected. I hope your break is going well. Dcoetzee 10:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Dcoetzee, thanks for stopping by, and sorry I missed you while I was on break. I hope that you guys do have some successes in the future from all the work put into it. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 02:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently the are 2465 submissions waiting to be reviewed.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Are you autoconfirmed?
  5. Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Strewth!

You've been sDrewth'd
You see him there, you see him there. Very nice. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

poop patrol

Hi Deltaquad, glad to see you around, any chance of firing up your bot for a poop patrol run? Ta ϢereSpielChequers 12:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do first thing in the morning. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks mate. ϢereSpielChequers 12:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Saw your edit comment, and well my morning is a few hours away, and my sleep patterns are a little off right now, so my morning isn't everyone elses morning, but in the next few hours. :P I'm UTC -4/-5. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes I'd noticed you were Canadian. I think if anyone were to analyse my eits they'd see some very odd times, especially when I was backpacking round New Zealand. Are you thinking of going to Wikimania? If so I've an idea for a joint presentation that takes the poop patrol concept on a couple of stages. ϢereSpielChequers 12:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I've saw it this year and never actually considered going but I thought it would be neat. I could see if I could go, I just have to apply for a scholarship. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW Hope this didn't throw your bot. If so its fixed. ϢereSpielChequers 15:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Same IP

The same IP as this is evading his block with the following IP;

23.19.68.66

Can you re-block him pls? Thanks Pass a Method talk 03:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done on a /16 with a note that this is a new webhost, not the same as ones in the past. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection at Talk:Muhammad/images

Hi, as far as I know, we've only had one case of vandalism there recently. Would you consider unprotecting? We don't get many IPs commenting there, but we had one yesterday, and it would be nice to have the page open in case he has anything more to say. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please consider the protection time, it was only 3 hours (which expired about to minutes ago, so it is unprotected as we speak), and has to do with the fact that of not feeding the trolls, and an attack that was immanent. I normally would agree with you, but not in this case. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah. I noticed "(indefinite)))" in your edit summary and didn't read further. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SPI

I'm wondering as to why the information on the case was deleted rather than simply rejected and archived as in typical fashion. Itgetsworse (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence of socking against a long-time editor, and it honestly was just disrupting the process. SPI deletions of such cases are normal. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
What about the evidence you deleted? Itgetsworse (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol&diff=473442631&oldid=473337618 – I've started a new case. The evidence for Fluttershy being Pickbothmanlol is compelling. You need to see past the "long-time-ness" of an editor. Can you please restore what you deleted so that it may be archived for historical reference in future cases involving Pickbothmanlol. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I am completely willing to get past 'the "long-time-ness" of an editor', I look at each new case as it is. I am not willing to restore the case previous on grounds of not feeding the trolls (If I may note the above editor has been blocked for socking) and leaving the old issues behind. You case seems to have enough meat in itself for the statements that you make that i'm sure you don't need the previous SPI to help you out. I'll be heading over to look at the new SPI soon. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
If the deleted revisions were restored, then I could explain what this tweet was referring to and use it as further evidence that u_abusebeercans is Fluttershy's twitter account. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this, but of course I don't see everything as you do, so in the interest of good faith, I have restored the case, and inserted also the case into the new one collapsed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Native languages in lead

Does this mean we can now delete the scripts (and optionally replace them with IPAs) citing that discussion as consensus? BollyJeff || talk 15:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can take a look at this tomorrow. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is the consensus? Should we remove the indic scripts existing in the articles and replace them with IPA? X.One SOS 10:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you guys. I have looked back over the RfC and have found that the consensus is to remove the scripts from the pages. That might be a bit on the edge of consensus, but it also seems like a reasonable compromise since there is no consensus on which language is to be used, instead of going around and edit warring about them more, which was the problem in the first place. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear User:DeltaQuad, I feel like some clarification is needed here. Throughout Wikipedia, millions of articles already have the native scripts in the lead. Does this warrant the removal of all of them? After I saw User:Bollyjeff's post above, I noticed that he had removed scripts from several articles, despite the fact that some of these articles have had discussions on which script to use (see this, for example). If I am incorrect on this matter, then I apologize and User:Bollyjeff can revert my edits. I look forward to your response. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair warning to you. User:Anupam is going to try and circumvent this decision. BollyJeff || talk 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Bollyjeff and I reached some kind of understanding here so we should be okay. I just thought I'd point that out. Have a good day, AnupamTalk 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, then I guess we have to remove scripts from all India-related articles then, and cite the consensus. X.One SOS 12:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I do not think that would really be helpful. If they are being problematic, then sure. However, they are helpful in many articles and there's no need for a mass campaign to remove all of them. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I have actually never seen a wiki benefit from mass changing per a consensus. I would recommend that they be pulled in over time, with the most severe cases of scripting that are causing issue be dealt with first. I'm not trying to dismiss the consensus, but it's not something we should rush. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I still had doubt on this. I was under the impression that....

  • For geographical articles, "IPA+State language" was the consensus.
  • For biographical articles there was no consensus on using Indic scripts but IPAs should be added.
  • Discussion on film articles was completely ignored. So no consensus on that & hence IPAs only should be added. No Indic scripts there too.

Am i right here? What is it? Could someone bullet-point all options please?
And i agree that a spree for removal of Indic scripts should not take place. That would have more vandalisms. Especially on biographical articles. Lets undertake this over time. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy, what a mess. I thought the current practice was:
  • For geographical articles, "Indic scripts in State language". (reaffirmed by this RfC)
  • For biographical articles, "IPAs only". (newly agreed to by this RfC)
  • For film articles, "Indic scripts for film language and English translation". (existing policy not covered by RfC)

I am also confused. We have a discussion and still there is disagreement on the outcome. Sorry to bother you DeltaQuad, but can you spend a little bit more time on this one? BollyJeff || talk 12:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I have seen this RfC maybe the scope of this is whats gonna shoot everyone in the foot, but, it was all India Related topics, narrowly constructed to specific roots in an Indian subject. Right at the beginning of this RfC it was noted bt Anupam that this RfC was that and also it was asked right below if it included other articles, and where MikeLynch verified that "Yes, all India-related articles" are covered. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought that the actual beginning of the RfC was here. You may have missed that, and only closed the section beginning with Options. BollyJeff || talk 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you DQ, when you say that we shouldn't rush things. I don't prefer mass-removal of scripts, it may lead to problems in the short run. I intended this RfC to cover all India-related topics, and some users found it fit to branch out a separate section for Geographical articles (the branch is perfectly fine by me, and in fact, I too opine that State language should be included for geographical articles). It would now be meaningless to have separate discussions for films, biographies, sports, universities, etc. Lynch7 16:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
So Mike, what was the purpose of the whole thing, did you get a definite resolution, and what do you want to see done now as a result? BollyJeff || talk 16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Many old Hindi films had titles displayed in English, Hindi and Urdu. Hence all three are used on articles. But then seeing a Urdu script on one article made editors to put it on other articles too. (And its very difficlut to verify whether the film used it or not. I am not gonna watch all movies!) Urdu credits fazed out and no disputes were seen on new film articles. But few films still use it and hence we had to use them on articles too. But again, "if A has it, B should also have it" started. Hence films were intended to be discussed separately in this RfC as the question "if the film credit itself has it in Urdu, why shouldnt the article have it?" is fair. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Whether the film mentions its name in Urdu or French or Klingon is immaterial, and that will be impractical to implement. See, we should not be having the scripts just for the heck of it, or just because its a Hindi film, or just because it is Indian. Anyway, this is the stuff that should have been discussed at the RfC, not in its closing discussion. Lynch7 17:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
@Bollyjeff: The intention was simple, it was to remove unnecessary impressions of "ownership" of articles by a particular language community. I'm guessing you know Indian languages yourself, and you would be aware of this problem. The inclusion of scripts would not be much of a meaningful addition to the article, and the disadvantages (vandal magnets, the "ownership" issue, possible libel going undetected) far outweigh any advantages. That is the mindset with which I started the discussion. Definite resolution, I don't know, that's for DeltaQuad to decide. Lynch7 17:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Does that mean we should remove all scripts from pages which have been unstable in this category, like Rajinikanth and Deepika Padukone? X.One SOS 10:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Those problematic pages should be the first ones to see the scripts go. DeltaQuad, could you clarify on the consensus regarding removal of the scripts? (and mention it in the closing comments of the RfC?) There is currently a lot of confusion. Lynch7 12:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Personally I thought that this was already cleared up above, but i'll go for it again. The consensus is to remove the scripts and replace them with IPA to clarify the pronunciation. Is there something else that I missed and that needs to be cleared up? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    That clears it up for me, thanks. Lynch7 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    Would you please close the rest of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Native_languages_in_lead, not just the Options part as it currently stands, and include your above statement there as well? Then we can reference that when making changes, and stay off your talk page. BollyJeff || talk 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Extended to include that section. Feel free to come back and let me know if there are any further issues regarding this. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Question

You stated (on my post to an archive): "appeal it on the closing user's talkpage if you wish..". I don't understand. What is a "closing user"? Who is the "closing user"? It clearly states, "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below.", which is what I did. I was prevented from posting until after it was archived. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I know that you would like to clear your name or state something for the record, but SPIs once they are archived are closed because the administrative decision has been made. Any clerk can reopen the case if needed. If you think that this new evidence clears your name, I would encourage you to speak to the closing administrator on the case (in this case it would be HelloAnnyong), because if we just threw it in now, and there is enough evidence to support your name being cleared, then we look back at the Archive and start thinking 'why didn't the closing admin think of that when he made the close?'. That opens a whole new issue, when we can just let the original administrator know about it. I hope this explains it, and I do personally care that everyone has a reasonable chance to defend themselves, and if you need any assistance please do let me know. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate the explanation. Not everyone has the experience or knows all the buzz words - or has time to read all the many pages of Wiki guidelines and policies. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
And I thank you for being understanding that I had a reason. It's people like you who give me a smile every day when I look on and realize the wiki is still sane. :) And never expect anyone to read the policies inside and out...I doubt that that is even a direct policy. :P It's more like the unwritten words 1/2 backed up with policy. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Screwball, et al

I have reason to believe that Screwball/68 was able to make another two accounts. Should I make a new investigation, add them to the existing one, or what?--Metallurgist (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

With two accounts, I'd file a new investigation under the same case name. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Disclaimer: Editing at an odd hour here because of snowtrucks outside and my computer running a temperature...so not at my best thinking, hope it all makes sense.
Thanks for looking into the discussion on the very important and highly visible page that is central to the Republican Primary race 2012. Metallurgist has done excellent work and has been maliciously attacked by a few. One clue about identity or multiple identity of the antagonist is his or her similar thought-process. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks Again .!. (Edited myself) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem, though I haven't seen the new case yet...can I get who these editors may be or the case filed? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
DQ, . . . I just spent half an hour reading through prior messaging on TALK and don't have anything to add. Who are these editors? I don't know. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2012/January&oldid=1184906658"