User talk:Unitanode/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome

Hello, Unitanode, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Spacevezon (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Adam Lambert

Can you remove Adam from the gay sections since he hasn't openly said it? Someone keeps adding them and I can't edit it yet. Thx in advance Trust30H3 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it! Thanks for the heads up, though. Unitanode 14:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (1)

Thank you for fixing my post, much appreciated. I was hit with edit conflicts and was also rushing out the door that I didn't get to see if my fix worked. Apparently it didn't, so thanks again. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It was no problem at all. Unitanode 22:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Danny Gokey

Let's take this to the talk page. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that you're involved in a much more interesting conversation down below, but would you mind taking a moment to keep us moving toward consensus on the Gokey article when you get a moment? Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Here's some recommended reading for you. Unitanode 12:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That is all very good but no one has ever tried to understand the research with supports my arguement, all the discussion so far has been one sided and based on ignorance and an umwillingness to understands the views of others. How to you go about puting a wrong right if the person doing the wrong refuses to even discuss the issues and ther research that proves that they are wrong. This is pure ignorance and ludsite mob rule.

WIKi is supposed to be about providing supported facts and not on the groundless opinions of self interested editors, which appears to be the case here. I have spent the last month and a hlf researching and edting the Dyslexia article and all these so clalled experts who have no knowledge of dyslexia become instant experts so that they can undo all the work I have done over the last months. This unacceptable and if WIKI condones this type of behavior it is no surprise that its repution is in decline as an encyclopedia, only useful as a store of possibly usefulmaterial used as references because th4r areticles themselves are so inaccurate.

These editors and their attitiudes would explain why this has happened. If WIKI is to regain any credability the editors need tpo be able to research the articles they are contributing to so that they are fully aware of the results of their action, which appears not to happen now. Most, not all, seem to be on a glorified ego trip., and never explaining the reasons for their actions.

dolfrog (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR Why are you replying here -- or at all? I left my comment on your page, yes, but it was a reply to the other person in your dispute, who has been trying to convince me that you;'ve been levying personal attacks. Unitanode 12:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

May be it is because I want that other party to stop making personal attacks on me, which thye have beewn doing for almost a month now, but no one wants to even listen to may case, because i am a newbie and I have as communication disability. or so it appears to me.

dolfrog (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Unitanode, I think that when taken all together, that there is plenty of evidence to support a charge of disruptive editing and rudeness. Individual comments might not be clear, direct attacks, but we do seem to have a significant problem, and I'm concerned that any "support", no matter how limited, is being misunderstood. That is, you might intend to say "I believe that a statement like you are acting more like an ill informed vandal rather than a user is tendentious and rude, but not technically classified as a personal attack under Wikipedia's guidelines", and I think that Dolfrog (like a not inconsiderable proportion of new editors that end up at WP:WQA) is understanding something rather closer to "On Wikipedia, if someone disagrees with me, it's okay for me to insult them as long as the grammar is indirect."

We need the editor to figure out civil discourse, not to figure out which of several behavior guidelines his poor behavior falls under. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I see his behavior as much less a problem than the content of his edits, and that he continues to make those edits without consensus or reliable sourcing. Maybe it's just me, but I've got pretty thick skin when it comes to rather minor insults. Unitanode 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your revert

Hello. if you recall, you reverted an edit I made to ANI @ [1] saying "do not edit section titles, of sections you have not started." this revert also removed my response to the OP.

However, the title as it stands is misleading (and irresponsible) -- this incident is also about the other editor NRen2k5, not just me. In changing it, I was following the example of [2] where the editor Bwilkin changed the earlier title to reflect the joint issue. Fhue (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You are involved in the issue, and it's VERY poor form to edit section titles of other users when you have a conflct of interest, as you clearly do in this case. Also, Nren was absolutely correct in saying that it breaks links to continually edit section titles. I take no position on the underlying dispute. Unitanode 12:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia and Categories

Thank you for your last contribution to the discussion. I do have somewhere in the hundreds research papers I have had to read in the last month or so some reliable documantatioj to support my supositions. The problem has ben being the lone editor on the dyslexia project, and first having to check all of the content of the existing article against references that were provided, or find references to support or contradict the existing content. In the most recent research papers thye are talking about writing systsms as until recently all the language comparisons regarding dyslexia had nearly all related to langauges in a single writing system Latin Alphabet. But new research from China and Japan etc are identify that the structure of the wrting system is a key factor in dertemining the combined neurological skills require to perform the task of reading, and dyalexia is about having one or more neuroligical skill deficits which make the task of reading more difficult. So the different skill requirements for reading in each writing system will determine which skill deficts are significant to causing and individual to be dyslexic.

when I find the relevent research documantation I will return to this topic.

dolfrog (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been really gratifying to see how you're using this difficult experience to grow as an editor. I have no doubt that you're going to do really great work on that project! Unitanode 17:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

To try and generate some interest from other editors in the Wiki Dyslexia project, I have created a Sandbox to develop the new Sub articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles. I have just added a few PMID papers for all to browse through. I tought you may be interested in the first 3 or 4 articles, well the abstracts initially in the Genetic article section, as they define dyslexics as having poor orthographic skills, which is beginning to leading in to how first met. dolfrog (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll watchlist the page, and help if I can, but to be honest, this isn't a real area of expertise for me. I don't know how much help I can really offer. Unitanode 17:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Unclean hands

Hi. I've noticed your contributions at WP:WQA recently, and I wonder about something. Do you think that telling people with complaints that their hands aren't clean tends to move more disputes towards resolution, or does it rather provoke defensiveness and escalation?

As is clear from the question, I think it's the latter. I'm concerned that WQA should be staffed in a manner that we demonstrate how to use civility and tact to defuse situations, and I'm not at all sure that telling people they've got "unclean hands" does that. Does what I'm saying make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You could well be right. However, I watched WQA for awhile before posting, and I felt -- and feel -- that making certain that the complainants know that WQA isn't a weapon to be used in disputes, and that if they've been provoking and civil POV-pushing, it's not the best thing to post a complaint about other people's behavior. If you feel that it's unhelpful, I'll step away from it, though. I can't be less than honest, so if pointing out when complainants are as much or more guilty than the ones they're complaining about is unhelpful, I'll certainly step away from it. I respect the takes you've offered thus far, and I'll respect this one as well. If you feel I've been unhelpful there, I apologize. Unitanode 00:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know if you need to step away; that's your decision. I just don't tend to think that assignment of blame advances most situations. If the person bringing the complaint is doing so abusively, then simply informing them of that isn't necessarily going to go over well. If it upsets them, then we're worse off than we were. Most people who bring a complaint with "unclean hands" don't see it that way, and these things are almost always subjective to some degree.
  I understand - and respect very much - your position about honesty, and I would never suggest you be less than truthful. However.... in a job interview, I refrain from honestly telling the interviewer that his hairpiece looks terrible. That's not dishonesty, it's just a respect for context. Not all honest statements are always worth saying. I think that, in a DR setting, the context calls primarily for resolution and de-escalation. Anything that comes across as an accusation of dishonesty or hypocrisy... will that get us to resolution quickly? Does it, usually?
  It's just as honest, I believe, to indicate that you don't think the initial report has a sound basis, and leave it at that. If they were trying to abuse WQA, and they realize it won't work, they're likely to go away. If the person responds by becoming belligerent, then of course we've got recourse to enforcement. The real advantage, though, is in the case where you might be mistaken, and the complaint was brought in perfectly good faith. Those are the cases where a "false positive" can be really harmful.
  It's just some stuff to think about. I think it's great that you want to help - and are helping - with dispute resolution, and I don't want to seem to be busting your chops. I'm simply sharing some opinions I've developed over time. Take care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  - I don't disagree with anything you've written here. I honestly felt -- as did Hans, apparently -- that making certain that the complainant in the last thread was best dealt with very honestly. I've been watching the dispute resolution process for several days now, both at WQA and ANI, and I've developed some real concerns about how civility is "enforced" on Wikipedia. We're all -- or most of us are -- grown ups here, and every time someone swears during a disagreement, or questions someone's motives, I don't think it should end up at WQA. I've noticed that disagreements here sometimes -- okay, lots of times -- get heated. While I try to keep a pretty level head, I don't think everyone who does lose it for a moment needs to be taken to "court" about it. I especially don't believe that the process needs to be used as a weapon in content disputes. In watching things develop at those two boards I have formulated a somewhat unique take on the civility and personal attacks policies. I fully understand now that this is not necessarily the mainstream view, and that it may not be welcome or necessary at WQA. As I mentioned before, I respect your views and manner of dealing things, so if you think I should step away from WQA for awhile -- or even for good -- I'll certainly respect that. You're perhaps the most rational voice I've dealt with on the project thus far. (I thought particularly well of your post to Dolfrog.) Unitanode 01:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    - Thanks for your vote of confidence. I strongly agree with you that using our behavior policies as weapons is a problem that needs to be addressed. I think that the way we handle these situations is something we haven't paid sufficient attention to, as a community, instead trusting each editor to develop their own strategy for dealing with conflict. It's hard to imagine we could all be right. ;)
      I'm a bit new to the WQA board, having just discovered it a couple of weeks ago in the context of a dispute which I don't think I handled very well. Live and learn, I guess. I might start posting there more often; we'll see.
      My philosophy on the civility policy, which I don't always remember in practice, is that the real message of the policy is to use civility to resolve disputes, and not to "report" anyone for "violating" the policy. It's not a statute, after all, and writing people tickets isn't very civil, especially when none of us are cops!
      Perhaps mine is also a unique view. I like that you care about how the community handles incivility, so no, I won't ask you to step away from anything. Just that we all keep thinking about this stuff. I'm pretty sure it's important, to figure out what really works. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

AN/I note

thanks. Yeah, it's so shocking that people who report others to AN/I rarely bother to do the notifications. The ambush factor's a temptation to many, and to others, they just don't want to deal with that person. It's a nice idea, and makes a lot of sense in terms of a smooth running AN/I page, but it's hard to keep in practice. ThuranX (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wilco Edit Undos

Tried to move all the info pertaining to the Wilco (the Album) recording sessions in New Zealand under the Wilco (the Album) section. You undid it for no real reason. None of that information really pertains to Sky Blue Sky, it gives background on how and where the album was recorded. It belongs under the Wilco (the Album) section.

I've started a discussion at the talkpage. Please participate there before attempting to move it for the third time. Unitanode 19:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (2)

I appreciate that. I'm sorry if my tone came across as uncivil. All this work on House has probably exacerbated any tendencies I might have toward bluntness. Anyway, I'm glad we've resolved this. All the best. DocKino (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'm glad it's resolved now as well. Unitanode 23:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Need a WIKI Reading Project

I am not sure how to go about asking to get a WIKI project set up, I was in the very deep background when the others set up the dyslexia project. However there is great need for a Reading Project, there are many reading artilces, which become very opinion based, and lacking in multiple citations, and many are alomost unnavigalbe. I have made a commnet to this effect on one of the worst articles Talk:Reading education in the USA. I hope you make some recomendations to try to resolve these problems

dolfrog (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There may well be an existing project already. I'll take a look around and see what I can find. Unitanode 14:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a mistake

I apologize I meant to click an article link on my watchlist but accidently drifted and hit the rollback button. I immediately tried to revert myself but someone already reverted. Sorry for any misundertandings. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and happy editing! --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee

I noticed your threat to block the above user at his talkpage, based upon his responses to Melonite. I would encourage you to look a bit deeper into the situation before actually taking any action such as that. Melonite has been goading, baiting, and forum-shopping (AfD, ANI, and WQA, to name a few) against Mick. Can Mick be quite blunt? Sure. Does it sometimes cross the line? Yes. Is it blockable, based upon the precipitating offenses of Melonite? I, personally, don't think so. I hope you understand I mean no offense with this note. I just wanted to let you know that the situation is much more complicated and complex than it appears at first blush. Unitanode 17:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That was a warning (for MickMacNee's benefit), not a threat. I have no intention of blocking MickMacNee at this juncture, but he needs to cease the incivility if he wishes to avoid such an occurrence in the future.

Note that Two wrongs = two wrongs; another individual's misconduct never justifies retaliatory personal attacks. If two users continually disrupt the project, both run the risk of being blocked (irrespective of who is the instigator). —David Levy 03:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much "justification" as much as "explanation." When there are mitigating factors, it becomes a more complex issue than just saying to MickMacNee, "Stop being uncivil or you'll be blocked." For the record, the person who had been antagonizing MMN is now blocked indefinitely for abusive sockpuppetry, including in his dealings with MMN. As I said, not justification, but certainly it mitigates against leaving warnings on MMN's page for being a bit impolite to an abusive sockpuppeteer. Were you within your rights? Sure, I don't deny that at all, and I hope there are no ill feelings between us for my note left at your talk. Unitanode 03:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No ill feelings at all. I realize that incivility often stems from frustration and can be deliberately provoked. Rest assured that I always seek to take any extenuating circumstances into account when evaluating how to address such a situation.

As I said, the warning was for MickMacNee's benefit. Uncivil conduct shouldn't automatically result in a block, but it always is inappropriate and always has a breaking point. That's why I take a hard-line approach in condemning incivility and advising editors of its ultimate consequences. —David Levy 07:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Melonite

CheckUsers usually don't publicly reveal IP CU results. I do on occasion reveal IP CU results when it is useful in identifying a banned user or if the account behind the IP has forfeited their right to anonymity by engaging in disruptive behavior. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware of that aspect of CU cases. I might argue that Melonite has been disruptive enough to qualify under your last criteria, but if you don't feel he has, I respect that. Unitanode 16:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I will tell you that a few of the IPs listed in the SPI were Melonite, but I won't go into specifics. At this point, I don't think it matters who's who – Melonite's blocked indefinitely, and that's good enough for me. ;-) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  - Fair enough! :) Unitanode 16:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Walpin redirect

Thanks - deleted. Black Kite 22:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't Delete peoples comments from a Discussion page

If you took the time to read what I wrote I was pointing out how on Don Imus's wiki page his controversial comment got hundreds of lines of comment. Yet when David Letterman makes a far more insulting comment the wiki community tries to cover it up.

In any case never delete content from a discussion page.Mantion (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What you posted was not a comment, it was a 12,000+ character rant, and it was removed per WP:SOAP. Unitanode 21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification/William M. Connelly

This was discussed the other night ad nauseum and it was decided that...

1) an editor can be wasted in any fashion and still edit Wikipedia, no rules against.
2) there is no way of truly knowing if WMC was drinking at the time of CoM's block.
3) and more-than-likely, as TenOfAllTrades put it, it was an "off-the-cuff, self-deprecating remark made by an individual who happens to have a sense of humour."

I would recommend removing the "levied while WMC was inebriated" comment from this page and please let this die with the thread about it on ANI. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I put "apparently" before the quote you offer above intentionally. If he was not -- and he states unequivocally that he was not -- I will certainly strike it. As of right now, I still find that possibility mitigates even further against what I view as having been a very poorly conceived block. Regards, Unitanode 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Alfresco dining

Per a request on the food and drink talk page I'm planning to start an article on this subject if you'd like to help. Right now I got sidetracked creating an article on epic (storytelling) since the existing article covers only epic poems. Whatever your weekend plans I hope you have a great time. Cheers. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure with your recent "trimming" of my attempt to help you out that I want to get involved. It's nothing personal, that just rubbed me the wrong way a bit. Additionally, I already have A Bit Off the Map that I'm working on right now. Best, Unitanode 05:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry about that. I had my reasons and it was nothing personal. I registered your note and tried to acknowledge it. I thought that was enough. I kind of wanted the comment above it to be kept prominent as I'm interested in Casliber's response, but I prefer to give him room to reply if he should so desire to do so rather than requesting that he do so, as I understand that these issues are complicated. I appreciate your interest and concern very much, and I again apologize for having irked you. It was not my intention, and my posting here was my way of acknowledging your message and letting you know that I appreciated it, noted it, considered it, and am proceeding accordingly. Beyond that, I did not think it was helpful or in my interest to have it at the bottom of my talk page. I also didn't fully understand your last, most recent post, but I'm trying to move forward and I don't really want to discuss those issues further. I'm doing my best to let others resolve that situation which has been unpleasant enough to have been involved in. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'm pretty easy-going, so it's not that big a deal. I'm really trying to extricate myself from my small corner of the situation right now, but I think that if you -- once you have some distance from this -- go back and look at your actions here, you'll probably have some things you really wish you hadn't written. I'm sure the other participants will have some regrets as well. Regards, Unitanode 06:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a nasty business all the way around. That's why I posted an article related note to you in reply to your messages. I was trying to avoid either of us engaging with that mess any further. I noticed that you stated your desire to disengage from further involvement elsewhere as well, a sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly. I don't like to see any of my friends or people I like mixed up in this kind of thing. Unfortunately, that sometimes leaves a cast that includes a large number of ~~unsavory characters~~ people who feed off disputes and enjoy hanging about at ANI, but such is life. Cheers. Thanks again for your kind consideration, and please let me know if in the future I can return the favor in some way. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to make this as clear as I possibly can. I am not taking sides here, and I wholly disapprove of your characterization of those who disagree with you as "unsavory characters." They are people, editors of this Wiki, just like you and I are, and that kind of characterization is wildly inappropriate. "Unsavory characters" are those who hide around corners in alleys, waiting to deal drugs. They're not people who happen to disagree with you about how the Wiki should be edited. Unitanode 16:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My characterization was related to the climate at ANI and to a type of editor that seems to frequent that area and hang out there. Many of the best editors here work on article content and aren't interested in disputes, for obvious reasons. Those that want to deal with disputes and drama all the time often tend to approach Wikipedia as a kind of amusement park. I was trying to be a bit cute with my unsavory remark, and I'm sorry if it was misunderstood. I seem to be digging myself a deep hole here, and I apologize. I wasn't suggesting that there are drug dealers at ANI. Cheers. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please revert and apologize there

You called my removal of trivial and redundant content both unexplained and then vandalism. Please revert yourself and apologize or stike your comments as mistaken. It was both explained and talked about and hardly vandalism. -- Banjeboi 17:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I was wrong to use rollback to fix your removal. However, I must say you are being very uncollegial in your refusal to gather consensus for this change. I looked through the Archuleta talk page, and I couldn't find anything where you gathered consensus there, though I well could have missed it. Unitanode 17:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please check again here and then here. You may note the same issue with that same editor. -- Banjeboi 17:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  - Those discussions have no relevance to removal of content from Adam Lambert, especially given the precedent set by nearly every other Idol article. Gather consensus at Talk:Adam Lambert before removing those columns. If you do so, I would not -- of course -- revert your removals. Until you gather that consensus, I'm well within my rights to do so. Please take this discussion back to the article talk page now. Unitanode 18:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Jon Gosselin page

If that user is persistently adding incorrect info on that article, you should definitely report him to WP:AIV. Cactusjump (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I may do that, if he continues doing so. So far, that's his only edit. Boy was it a doozy! Unitanode 00:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I meant User:CaptainEagle, who continually keeps adding incorrect info, and just recently made an edit you had to revert. Cactusjump (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Is that really vandalism, or more of an issue for ANI? Unitanode 00:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure, but either way, persistent errors added is something to report, IMO. Cactusjump (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Generation Jones

I think the checkuser needs times, dates, and actions in order to justify the requests. I added a few, but you (apparently) prepared the list, so you should remember why you added them. 02:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look back at my evidence page, and see. Unitanode 02:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed block settings on TreadingWater?

May I ask why you changed the block settings from "Indefinite" to "3 months"? He's still abusively socking, even after the original account was blocked. I'm not sure what the protocol for blocking abusive sockpuppeteers is, but if ever a master account should be indef-ed, I think this guy is it. Unitanode 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

He is on unblock-en-l repenting. However, if he keeps it up, feel free to change it back. The three month block is based on the assumption that he will honor it. Fred Talk 21:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what "unblock-en-l" is. Is that a message board or something? Depending on the time stamps of his "repentance" versus when he was actively socking with the two from today, it's most likely crocodile tears, though. As for changing it back, I'm not an administrator, so I can't do that. Would you mind if I just dropped a note at yours, Lar's, or Icestorm's page if he keeps it up, so that the block can be moved back to indefinite? Unitanode 22:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'm watching him anyway, and can do a checkuser if necessary. Fred Talk 00:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Letterman

Since you do not know the meaning of concensus I don't see how you can claim one exists. Arzel (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Current death template

I saw that you removed the template from the Burris article. I don't have a problem with that but just wanted to let you know that usual practice is to leave it in place for a week. – ukexpat (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought I remembered something about that, but I wasn't sure. My thinking was that it wasn't really serving any purpose at this point, but I have no problem if anyone replaces it. Thanks for the note. Unitanode 03:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Patrick Tracy Burris links

Hello, I appreciate your work on this article as well. Crime-related articles are too often created then abandoned to be filled with POV and vandalism. With regard to the link removal, I was following the WP:LINK guidelines of linking terms that will help readers better understand the page topic and not linking common words. I don't see how linking "abandoned house" to "urban decay" helps readers better understand Burris or his crimes, or even Dallas, North Carolina. The piped linking of "trying to determine" to "investigation" links it to a disambiguation page, which is discouraged, and is odd, particularly when "Investigators" is at the beginning of the sentence. May I suggest pipe linking "Investigators" to Detective? Best, momo ricks 04:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine. As for linking to the place where he was killed, I think that is fairly standard, is it not? Unitanode 05:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if my note is confusing. I meant that linking to "urban decay" didn't provide more information regarding Dallas, North Carolina. momo ricks 00:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I see what you meant now. Unitanode 03:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Attack pages

Hi there; in my personal view, motivation is not a consideration if a page appears to be an uncompromising attack. I understand your point, but an editor in the future would see only the text, without an affixed rationale. And labelling someone by name as a Scottish douchebag is an attack. Hence my rationale. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand. I had actually considered G10, but knowing the motivations of the creator, decided against it. Thanks for your quick response. Unitanode 17:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Jon Gosselin

You reverted my edit by accident. I have reverted the article back since Kate is estranged to Jon. I provided a reference so how is it a highly charged, non-neutral word? 96.57.34.146 (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain? You left no explanation on my talk page or in your edit summary. 96.57.34.146 (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all I needed to know. 96.57.34.146 (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadaaki Senda

Hello Unitanode. The citation was intended for controversial claim. It should be directly cited. Don't remove that ref., please. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't removed any references. Unitanode 14:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ooops, sorry, it was Johnkatz who removed it. I'll notify him. Have a good day. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You as well! :) Unitanode 14:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse's monitoring pages

Your removal of a discussion in progress between Matisse and her mentors was either WP:DE or culpable negligence. You are neither an ArbCom nor one of Mattisse's mentors. Hence you have no say in how Mattisse's monitoring page and related Talk pages, sub-pages, etc. are managed - only in raising issues in which you were directly involved with Mattisse. You may propose, but others will dispose. I note how strongly you objected to unwanted comments on your own Talk page. Expect others to apply the same rules to you. --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you were actually paying attention, you would note I didn't remove it, I moved it, per what I thought, as did Karanacs, was her request. You have no say in what I do or do not place at the monitoring page, and you would do well to focus on your mentoree and not on other people. I will not be heeding your "commands", and if I see Mattisse making problematic edits, I will be reporting them not to faux mentors like you, but to an arbcom member. That mentoring page is not serving the purpose for which it was created. Your above nonsensical post is simply one example. Unit Anode 13:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Notification of arbcom discussion

Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but I do believe I'll be sitting this one out. Content issues are providing enough headaches for me right now! :) Unitanode 12:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Letterman redux

While I am in disagreement with you with in regards to the Palin incident, I do appreciate your efforts in keeping that disagreement tidy. Your improvements in regards to the straw poll have done much to beautify a messy situation. I also appreciate the passion you have for the Letterman Show. I hope we can come to something you will regard as an amicable settlement.Datacharge (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I don't even personally care for the show. I can't even remember how I stumbled upon the disagreement. My sole aim is to see the encyclopedia be the best it can be. (Personally, the only late night guy I really like is Craig Ferguson.) Unitanode 04:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am more of a Jon Stewart man, myself. You have to understand I am coming at this from the viewpoint of an inclusionist, to me this has met all the criteria for notability.Datacharge (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First, as has been pointed out at the talkpage, notability guidelines don't hold sway as far as content goes. Second, as you have labeled yourself an inclusionist, this material already is included, at a Sarah Palin-related page. The material is not being excluded from the encyclopedia. Unitanode 04:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your right of course with regards to notability as a Wikipedia concept, however I meant the word in it's more general usage. In my mind inclusion in one page does not mean exclusion in others. I think leaving this material out of the Letterman article would raise POV issues especially when taken in the context of the notable episodes that are included.Datacharge (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get too political here, but I saw what you posted at the top of your page and I have to ask. You voted for Bush twice, not because of ideology but based on his personal merits? How is that possible? Datacharge (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Because not everyone considers Bush to be an evil jerk, and because my party (I'm officially a Democrat) put two men whom I didn't like at all up against him. Unitanode 17:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I can see your point with Kerry, and to a lesser degree with Gore. To be honest though I have trouble seeing how a forth of the population still approves of how Bush led this country. What I wonder is what you see as Bush's upside. BTW I've been wondering what does Unitanode mean? Datacharge (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to delve into this any further, except to say this: even today, there's much more heat than light about Bush's presidency. Are there people who will always hate him? Sure. Are there people who will defend every action he took as president? Sure. I'm not in either camp, but I think that in 20 years or so (once there's more light, and less heat), the camps won't be nearly as far apart as they are today.

As for my username, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but my username means nothing -- at least to me. It was simply the random word that is required to type in when a new account is created. Unitanode 17:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

While I have to disagree with you about Bush in general, I think a lot of the points you've just made are valid. Have a good day Unitanode.Datacharge (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Elections Again

On the subject of the election-related articles: it seems to me that the Peter Hoyt Brown article has the properties of a wp:Coatrack article in that it selectively picks things that, though true, unduly promote the subject. If I didn't have some interest in the subject I would be more persistent in dealing with such things myself, but because I do have an interest in the subject, I'd prefer that someone tell me whether or not it's just me or if there actually are some bias issues. Does the article seem to have coatrack/resume-type issues to you? --Nogburt (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to approach this one, and I'm going to bed for the evening, so I'll try to get to this tomorrow or the next day. Unitanode 04:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for making something of a fuss again, but in my very partial opinion the changes to the Houston_mayoral_election,_2009 from user:Conti's last changes are less than fair. I removed the polls previously, but they seem to have been put back up. The polls don't seem fair because they aren't scientific. One comes from the readers of a particular periodical and the other is referenced from a page contesting its validity. They are also both pre-election season polls, which would have little encyclopedic value even if they were scientific. It appears to me as though folks are trying to use the Wikipedia page on the election to show that their candidate is going to win (so that folks will want to vote for them via the Bandwagon effect). I'd propose removing the polls (again), and possibly the endorsement lists. --Nogburt (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Unitanode 23:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The polls are back up and there seems to be something of a brewing edit war over them.--Nogburt (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Knock knock

Hi Unitanode - you've helped me previously with BLP issues and I'm hoping you can add a fresh set of eyes to a strange situation unfolding with User:Jewish Marley, specifically her edits to the Bob Marley article (example here). Although the article is clearly not covered by BLP, I'm wondering whether I should just let it play out, or whether to bring it up at a noticeboard (at the very least there may be copywrite issues) - I guess what I'm looking for is a trusted second opinion. Cheers, --ponyo (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've been working through the 'TA' section of the Living People category for weeks now and then these bizzarre Bob Marley edits popped up on my watchlist. I wasn't sure whether I was over-sensitized to unreferenced material due to my heavy BLP editing, or if there may actually be an issue. I'll pop on over to WP:RS and ask them to take a look. Thanks again, ponyo (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem -- glad to help! Unitanode 19:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sam Fuld

Hey there. Just to clarify my BLP concern on Sam Fuld: my concern chiefly was that the sourcing of the second paragraph, which says flatly he is Jewish, is contradicted by better sourced text in the "personal section." Given contradictory sourcing, my feeling is that BLP mandates we act conservatively and not mention his religion. I've clarified on the BLP noticeboard, as this really hasn't been resolved. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have another look. Thanks for the note. Unitanode 15:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Definitely resolved now (assuming your fixes are not reverted.) Thanks. I trust now that the Jewish categories are removed? This actually was how I became interested in this article, as it arose during a discussion elsewhere of possible overcategorization and overuse of ethnic labeling. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at WP:BLP/N regarding this. Also, I didn't remove the categories, as the source where he states that his father is Jewish might be enough to leave the Jewish category on there. I have no real opinion on removal/retention of the categories themselves. Unitanode 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Actually the categories aren't there. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:BLPCAT. If his religion isn't central to his notability, it's not an appropriate category anyway. Frank | talk 17:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I wasn't aware of that portion of BLP policy. There are lots of nooks and crannies there, I guess! :) Unitanode 17:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. Thanks to you both. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for help in merging accounts

I am trying to do a unified account, but I can't, because this account -- which I did not start, and know nothing about -- is out there. I don't know how to proceed here. The name I chose is a random combination that was generated as a security code when I created this account, and has no meaning at all. I have no idea how this foreign language user also ended up with the same name. Unitanode 17:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there.

I'm really sorry, but I can't help. Because that account has contributions (ja:特別:投稿記録/Unitanode ), it is not possible to usurp the account. You could ask the user to please rename, but as their contribs are from 2008, I think it unlikely that they will respond. I'm sorry.

If you want the same name on EN and JA, my only other suggestion would be to rename your English account to something that is definitely available on JA.

Sorry I couldn't help more. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't want an account on JA. But, because there's a user who (oddly) has the same name as me there, it forever says my account is "in migration". I simply want to know how to say, basically, "That account isn't mine; stop trying to migrate it." Can you help me with that? Unitanode 22:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the SUL Utility, you have a global account, and JA was simply unattached. Are you sure you are unable to complete the process? The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 22:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what it says when I click on "my preferences":
"Global account status: In migration
Your account is active on 7 project sites.
Unconfirmed accounts with your name remain on 1 project.
I have to click "manage my global account" to see the ones that my account is active on. Is that normal? If so, I guess it's problem solved. I just thought that all the projects should come up when I simply click "my preferences", and that the extra click-through was being caused by the unattached JA account with my same name. Unitanode 22:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you have to click on "manage my global account" to see all of the projects you account is active on. It would be very difficult if they were displayed directly on your preferences. For example, my global account is active on 74 projects, and that would take up too much space on the main preferences page. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 22:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Sorry for the trouble, then. BTW, will it always say "in migration" on the "my preferences"? Unitanode 22:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure. On my preferences page, because there was no such conflict, the it says "All in order!", and not "In migration". However, it shouldn't affect you in terms of actual editing. You can test it out by going to a random wiki: try this one, for example. If you have a global account and everything is working properly, you should see yourself logged in, even though you never created an account there. Regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 22:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It worked. I guess I'll just have to get used to seeing "in migration" there! :) Unitanode 22:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Barwick's mediation case

Not sure if he ever notified you, but he opened a case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-15/Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama a few weeks back. Your name is listed as a party, among others. Seems like a waste of time IMO, and if you specifically decline to participate I believe that that effectively short-circuits the process, since it is informal. Just an FYI. Tarc (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sam Fuld(2)

I believe that it is met by all three citations, as is discussed on the talk page ad nauseum. In no way, as discussed there, is it necessary to "combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The conclusion is expicitly stated. I'm not clear how you are missing that. It is clear as day -- though of course in two of the articles you have to know what "MOT" means or what "Member of the Tribe" means, but if you are not knowledgable in the meaning of the term, that is not what is guarded against by the synthesis prohibition. And the article by the major league baseball reporter doesn't even use that term. I feel that you are, to use a baseball term, way off base. The only synthesis applied was by the editor who mistakenly (and I have shown that he was without a doubt mistaken) suggested that if Fuld had a christmas tree he could not have been Jewish. Far from the case -- that editor was making a personal assumption, perhaps based on personal research, that had no foundation in reality, and was using "synthesis" based on his misconception to try to usurp a brief contrary statement supported by three sources. And I note that this fact is certainly more notable and relevant to the Sam Fuld article than the religions of his parents, which were in the article prior to my deletion of them.--Ethelh (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In no source does Fuld say "I am Jewish." That is required to categorize him as such. Anything else is pure synthesis and violates WP:BLPCAT. Please review the discussion at WP:BLP/N regarding the article before making any further edits explicitly calling him "Jewish." Unitanode 04:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that at [3] you warn others that if they removed properly sourced material they may be blocked. I agree with that sentiment.--Ethelh (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Note" whatever you want. Policy is not on your side here. Adding material about a subject's religion to their article, when it's not central to their notability is against policy. You simply must stop doing it. Unitanode 04:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Out of curiosity, are you Betty Logan?

2)MOT and Member of the Tribe are slang for Jewish (e.g., the first article says "Now, it just so happens that two of my favorites are also Members of the Tribe. Sam Fuld and Adam Greenberg fit the mold perfectly", and the second one says "And a “welcome back” to Chicago Cubs outfielder Sam Fuld... That elevates the total of MOT back to 13"; and the third citation of course clearly lists him on the "Jewish Sports Review" 2002 College Baseball All-American [The Jewish Sports Review is the only source for complete and up-to-date information about Jewish Athletes] First Team.).

It does not receive undue treatment, a mere two words. The references are quite central to the articles, which focus specifically on Jewish ballplayers.

The first of the above cited sources that indicate that he is Jewish is written by Jonathan Mayo. If you are an avid baseball fan, you probably recognize the name. He is a senior staff writer for MLB.com, and has been writing for them on baseball and baseball players for a decade (after moving over from the New York Post).

The first article by MLB.com's senior writer Jonathan Mayo -- based on an interview with him -- says "Now, it just so happens that two of my favorites are also Members of the Tribe. Sam Fuld and Adam Greenberg ...." And the second one says "And a “welcome back” to Chicago Cubs outfielder Sam Fuld... That elevates the total of MOT back to 13". And the third citation of course clearly lists him on the "Jewish Sports Review" 2002 College Baseball All-American [The Jewish Sports Review is the only source for complete and up-to-date information about Jewish Athletes] First Team.).

I haven't checked, but I would guess that with Moses, Ben Gurion, Elie Wiesel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Golda Meir, Barbara Streisand, Jerry Lewis, Woody Allen, and Ben Gurion most if not all of them likely do not have better sources indicating that they are Jewish (probably not as good as here -- the senior editor to the official publication of the sport), and yet the articles so indicate. Are you going to delete references to them being Jewish?--Ethelh (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are accusing me of sockpuppetry, the proper forum is that way. None of the sources you quote show Fuld stating his religion, nor is his religion anywhere close to central to his notability. I've explained this to you. You've ignored me. I won't be replying further to your erroneous line of reasoning, and if you revert the information back into the article, I will be forced to ask an administrator to block you from editing. Biographies of living persons are taken very seriously here, and violations of the policy will not be tolerated. Additionally, if your "Are you Betty Logan?" comment was intended to attempt to out me, I'd recommend stopping that as well. It's a good way to get, not just blocked, but community-banned. Unitanode 04:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am asking if you are Betty Logan. Sockpuppetry carries with it connotations that of course extend beyong a person using more than one account. I note that Betty Logan has been a difficult editor who has wikistalked me (and was recently warned for related activity), and that the only apparent nexus between us prior to today is Betty Logan, so it seemed to be an appropriate question. If our nexus is not Betty Logan, then I ask how you landed in the middle of this discussion.

BTW, the section that you quoted of course related solely to religious beliefs. Of course Judaism is something that most people are born into, is a nationality/people/ethnicity as well as a religion, and the categorization requirements for those do not require the same as would an article that states "Fuld believes in Judaism." This only states that he is Jewish, which is supported by the cites, and does not violate any Wiki stricture. If you disagree, I urge you to leave it as I put it (it had been stable in that form for some time), and with it as such bring it to an administrator.--Ethelh (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring Report

Please note that, as despite my entreaties in my last edit summary that you not yet again revert and edit war, but rather that you leave the page Sam Fuld page intact in the form that it existed for a long and stable time until recently, you have reverted me three times within a short period of time I have entered a notice as to your edit warring at [4].--Ethelh (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bon Jovi Vocal Range

I've looked everywhere on the internet and cannot find his EXACT vocal range. I don't believe that for any other musician on Wikipedia, that it's actually sourced to say exactly what their vocal range is. Unless they make a "vocal range test" and some magazine is there to report on it, it's never going to be told. I'm a musician and I know my vocal range. In "Livin' on a Prayer", the highest recorded note in the song is a G#5, which is approximately 893 Hz. The only way any information like this can be verified is if the artist says it publicly or something, and I don't think that's a question people have on their mind. If they ever DO get asked that question (and maybe HAVE been asked), it might not end up being posted on the internet as it's not *that* important. Sometimes you just have to believe that what people say is true. I know Wikipedia has to source everything, but there are simply some things that are impossible to be sourced and should be left for the viewer to decide whether it's credible information or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremador (talk • contribs) 08:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe so. You may want to pose this question at the village pump or the reliable sources noticeboard, though, as the editors there may have some insight as to how you might proceed. I wish I could be more help. Unitanode 14:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- This may or may not help, but the vocal ranges of David D'Or, Georgia Brown (Brazilian singer), Tim Storms, and Thom Yorke are sourced on Wikipedia ... and that's just at a quick glance.--Ethelh (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  - Because they are pretty much record breakers for having the highest vocal notes on the planet. I'm talking about casual singers. Bon Jovi, Chris Brown, T-Pain, Amy Lee, etc... .--Extremador (talk)
    - Right -- I think it is sometimes mentioned even then, but only when notable (as evidenced by it being reported in the article(s) that are used as cites). Examples: D'Or above, Marvin Gaye, Joan Baez, Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilera.

Talkback

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

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fuld (again)

I was wondering if in this edit[5] you intended to remove any reference to the father and mother? It's fine with me, but seems to contradict the edit summary. Personally I think the faith of the parents is irrelevant, though it can be added if needed to resolve the religion issue.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I did intend to remove the mention. Ethelh expressed concern that if calling Fuld "Jewish" was inappropriate then so was mentioning his parents religions, sourced only to his statement. I agreed, and removed it. Sorry for the confusing edit summary. Unitanode 14:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I agree 100% that the religion of his parents is irrelevant, and would be unless this were a major public figure like Winston Churchill. I imagine we can put in the job his parents had. But my main concern at present is that this does not become a BLP 100 Years War.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
As inserting a person's religion without a self-identification is a clear BLP violation (this was made clear to Ethelh when she reported me for "edit-warring"), simple reversions of attempts to add the information are all that's required. I'm not going to let myself get too stressed out over this issue. Unitanode 14:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. This has been exceptionally wearisome. I get the impression intentionally so. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I get that impression as well. Unitanode 03:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

MJJ bookwriting

what do you mean by "text lift??" (LonerXL (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

I mean that the text you placed in the article is directly lifted from the Rolling Stone article. Additionally, the text was parenthetical, and certainly not nearly notable enough to merit inclusion in the article, text lift or not. Unit Anode 00:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Not notable enough? Even though he himself wrote the book?! So many "upper-level wikipedian guys" are VERY stiff and unreasonable. I don't get your point and judgement, Mr Anode.(LonerXL (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Michael Jackson

Hi Unita, thanks for your note. I disengaged from there a couple of weeks ago too, also because working on it was very frustrating. It was a case of one step forward, three steps back. I will take a look, but I doubt I'll be ready to get involved again. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I just knew you'd done a lot of work on it, so I wanted to let you know. If the POV-pushing isn't stopped, it will need to go up for FAR very soon. Unit Anode 18:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree about FAR. I was intending to do it at some point, but I thought I'd wait until he's less in the news, though that could be longer than we're willing to wait. I actually have some issues with the way it was written before the death too. I feel it's too music-oriented, not enough bio. Also, so much more information is available now than used to be, and that's likely to increase over the next few months, so our ideas about what should be in it could end up changing quite significantly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree somewhat about the music-oriented side of things. A larger problem right now, though, seems to be with the POV-pushing regarding rumors about Jackson not being the biological father of his children, which is causing some massive instability. Let me know if you do decide to take it to FAR. Unit Anode 20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My edit to Barack Obama

Thanks for notifying me, however I am right at this moment using Huggle, the revert was meant for a different page, I saw it trying to revert Barack Obama and was readying to undo my own edit, however HG notified me that it was unable to revert the page anyway so I let the page be. Just so you know I undid my last edit to the page, I don't have any issues with User:Jessedow24's edit and at the time didn't even get to read the edit as the page only displayed a "diff=1" error. Thanks for letting me know of that revert though. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't notice it was Huggle (I don't personally use HG), and thought it was use of your rollbacker tool. Apologies for any confusion. Unit Anode 20:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

While you're on

Do you happen to know what Wiki's policy(if they have a policy) is against users or IP's removing warnings from their own talk pages? Thanks. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This page deals with your question. Normally, removal of warnings is taken as a tacit acknowledgement that they've been read, and if the warned-for behavior is repeated, the warning that removed still counts toward any potential blocks that may be levied. Hope that helps. Unit Anode 20:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, appreciate it. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I'm glad to help! Unit Anode 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Adam Lambert

I would like your opinion on the removal of columns from Adam Lambert. User:Benjiboi removed the RfC after it had expired, marked it as resolved and then deleted the columns with "rmv per expired RfC" even though the matter was not resolved and there was no consensus to delete the columns found in the RfC. Since then I have twice added back the columns while discussing on the talk page, but have been reverted. Benjiboi now says I would have to find a consensus to add back the columns even though there was a consensus before the RfC, no outside editors during the RfC adding input and no change during the RfC. If consensus has never changed, why would you need to find the same consensus? Aspects (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Done--I've responded at the talkpage, and restored the columns (for now, at least). Unit Anode 21:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama daughters

Hi - no, I don't think a separate article about the daughters is needed, as they are well-covered in the article Family of Barack Obama, and they do not have independent notability. When separate articles have been tried for Malia, they were merely repetitions of what we have in the Family article, so the redirect seems to accomplish what we want. If someone comes here to read about the daughters, they are redirected to the article that talks about them, and other family members who similarly don't have independent notability. This is being discussed at Family of Barack Obama#Malia Obama article. Tvoz/talk 21:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on it, I just watch Obama-related articles, had noticed your reversions of the creation of a separate article on M, and was kind of thinking out loud on your talkpage about some ways forward. Honestly, I probably lean in favor of not having separate articles, as both are minors, and the circumstances here aren't much different than when a couple of users tried to create an article on the children of Michael Jackson. If I feel I have anything really substantive to add, I'll post to the discussion you linked above. Unit Anode 21:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that they are children certainly figures into it for me - I think we have to be particularly careful for BLP and common decency reasons to tread lightly with kids. I missed the brouhaha over MJ's kids, but I'm sure I'd have said the same thing regarding them. Nice to meet you! Tvoz/talk 21:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you as well, Tvoz. The kerfuffle over MJ's kids was quite intense, and lasted for awhile. Be glad you missed it! :) Unit Anode 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Public image of Barack Obama

He'll stop arguing if we stop responding. Let the fire burn out.--Loodog (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

He's really stuck in fingers-in-the-ears mode. "You're not listening." "Oh yeah, what am I not listening to?" Just let him talk - he'll stop if we stop pretending his posts are worth responding to.--Loodog (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we know each other?

Although we have edited on the same pages, I don't think in the short time since you have been an editor, we have ever come in contact before. Ikip (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Your interactions with Lar -- whom I know only a little, but respect a lot -- is the first time I've had occasion to notice your presence on the project. Why? Does it matter somehow? UnitAnode 04:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, thanks for your time. Ikip (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Hmm... well, this was certainly an odd interaction. Unit Anode 04:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Your conduct at WQA

Unitanode, your conduct is becoming more problematic. You are responsible for the ill-considered and disruptive postings you made at the WQA. Ikip (the filing party) seems to have confirmed on my talk page that MBisanz post was insufficient to resolve the tension. Yet, you've tried your hardest to pretend that it has, and that the only problems in this dispute were with the user who filed the WQA, when this was plainly not true. Please refrain from making such misrepresentations again. Instead of stirring the pot further by pointing at my analysis and badgering me about it, consider finding a way to fix the problems with your own approach (maybe, start off with your analysis).

There's no condescension, but a logical explanation regarding your unhelpfully problematic approach here; that it is perhaps a direct result of your lack of experience (after all, you've been editing here for merely 6 months - that's really not that long). Regardless, if you continue to employ such an approach on-wiki, then your tenure here is likely to be short indeed. This is my final warning to you: back off. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist's view is not uniformly held. While it's important to remain calm and dispassionate, it's also important to be able to speak one's mind as long as one isn't disruptive. Don't let others intimidate you into suppressing your opinion. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't. It's apparent to me that Ncmvocalist isn't at all dispassionate here. I take his posts for what they're worth, which I consider to be a trace amount of NaCl. I think that Ncmv will find I'm not easily intimidated by threats of my "tenure here" being "short indeed." Such threats are ill-considered, unhelpful, and quite empty, given the tenor of Ncmv's own contributions. Unit Anode 15:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My response to Ncmvocalist's final accusations and threats at WQA

As Rd (wisely, in my opinion) archived and closed the discussion at WQA, I thought I'd post the response I was EC-ed out of making there to my talk, which I'm sure that Ncmv is watching:

Whatever you may believe, I was not EC-ed, and had no idea you'd posted below. What you're doing now is the very definition of assuming bad faith. Toward me, you're free to do this, as I'm not one to report people for such things, but I'd not recommend it as a general practice. My approach here hasn't been "problematic" in the least. I proffered my opinion that the problem was not with Lar. Mbisanz noted that perhaps it would be best to let this die. You stirred the pot with a post equating Lar's actions with Ikip's. Also, when you mention "others", I see only you here. Is there something I should know? Unit Anode 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP Noticboard

Hi UnitAnode - You've been noticeably absent from WP:BLPN lately. Have you moved on to other projects? I'm just curious as I found your input and assistance there very helpful. Cheers, --ponyo (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I may be coming back to it soon. Thanks for the note. Unit Anode 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

A user has initiated a thread mentioning you here. –xeno^talk 18:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It looks like it's fizzed out, so I won't post there. Unit Anode 19:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Take care Unitanode. I know you disagreed with me at times, but you always came across as a fine fellow. I disagreed with you too at sometimes :) and I think it's a pity that any editor here feels the need to defend their edits by defending their political viewpoints (but actually now that I think about it I've also tried to defend myself that way). And I suppose I'm an idealist and a dreamer thinking that a diversity of viewpoints would be tolerated and encouraged here, the world just isn't perfect. Cheers. Take care and have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I hope you'll keep active as your schedule permits.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_clarification

FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. If you already have commented at the RFC, my apologies for contacting you. Ikip (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Opening sequence in the House article

I see you undid my quite bold edit on the House article earlier today. That's fair enough. However, I do feel that the section in question should be removed or, if not removed, seriously cut down. Therefore I invite you to discuss it on the talk page if you wish. Planewalker Dave (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The MfD

I hate "smiles promote wikilove" banners, but I was tempted to leave one here. Instead I'll just say that I appreciate your comments at that MfD and elsewhere, and the way you present your views. Thanks and best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you! As you're someone I really respect, your note means a lot to me. Especially when it often feels I'm spitting into a very stiff wind in some of these discussions. Best, Unit Anode 22:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3#User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Law Lord (Result: )

Can you add anything to clarify this AN3 complaint? I note you are the editor who filed the SPI case about TreadingWater. There are two mutual 3RR complaints open between Arthur Rubin and TreadingWater. You might have some background you could add at the noticeboard. Reblocking of TreadingWater is certainly something to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

David Williams Pornography Section

If there is a specific reason you undid my most recent edit, I'd be interested in hearing it. Machine Man (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I've been having trouble with even short additions getting added on the first try for the past two days now, and have, on both days, found myself dealing with hotly contested issues. The fact that, on top of the below average speed, edit conflicts have arisen each time hasn't made my mood any better. My apologies for taking it out on you. John Carter (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I was (and am) far more concerned with GG's sarcastic dismissal of the concern I raised. I appreciate that you're at least attempting to engage on the issue. Unit Anode 01:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For your efforts in trying to reduce the amount of tension and drama around here. Yeah, sometimes even you can wind up, unintentionally, getting caught up in it. But you have my thanks for being willing to expose yourself to the heat anyway. John Carter (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I also appreciated Regents' response at the page as well. Unit Anode 02:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

Unfortunately, this is how it goes every time an issue comes up;[6] the mentors seem to see their role as protecting her, rather than Wiki or those "plagued". What concerns me is that ArbCom allowed her to choose her own mentors, several were highly impartial, one who was willing to tell her how her behaviors led to problems got tired of not being listened to and gave up, some of them defined a limited role for their mentoring from the beginning, and some don't seem willing to give her the kind of guidance she could most benefit from. The result is no mentorship, and a mentoring page that degenerates into brawls over the mentors themselves. The plan simply wasn't structured in a way that would provide the guidance that would most benefit Mattisse or Wiki or content review processes or the editors on her plague list. What troubles me about this situation is that, if she ends up back at ArbCom, it will be as much because of the failure to establish a functional mentorship as because of her continued behaviors. It's hard to keep up with the page, but I haven't seen any of them simply explain to her that she frequently misinterprets diffs, fails to assume good faith, or that the best way for her to avoid problems is to simply stay away from commenting about or involving herself with editors she has had prior entanglements with, including their FACs, FARs, GANs, and GARs. For her to pretend that Geogre isn't on that list seems less than sincere. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't believe I've ever had any direct involvement with Mattisse before this last, but I really respect the work that I've seen from Geogre, and had followed her RFAR (and his) from afar, so when she posted about him, I felt it was serious enough to take to that page. And in the defense of at least some of the mentors, I think that there's a core group that does "get it." And even those who seem to be almost bodyguard-ish of her, I think they're acting in good faith. I think that they truly feel they're acting in both the best interests of the wiki and Mattisse. I tend to agree with you that some of their actions are counterproductive, though. I'm not sure what else can be done, however, as I for one don't feel like arguing about it with them. UnitAnode 21:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- My words got twisted on this latest one and are now being used against you - sorry! I know better than to involve myself on that talk page but can't seem to stop. At least John Carter made some very good points this time; we'll see if that will outweigh Philcha's partisanship. Karanacs (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  Mattisse does that (twisting words to mean what she wants them to), and it seems that no one is willing to call her on it. I find it interesting how what I've posted there is "unhelpful." I've not been inflammatory in any way, and have simply tried to hold up a mirror as to what is happening there. Unit Anode 16:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Paltridge

You have no idea of the history I have with the other editor. He edits tendentuiisly, always advancing his POV (global warming is not real). Look at his history. Consider merely one issue: he is trying to exclude a See also link to Global warming conspiracy theory from the Paltridge page, even though Paltridge makes numerous accusations of such conspiracies in his book. He is clearly wrong on this, but gets away with it thanks to a sympathetic admin's intervention. ► RATEL ◄ 06:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I happen to agree with him on the narrow issue of whether that belongs in "see also." And I find your behavior in this particular instance -- particularly your edit summaries -- unacceptable. Unit Anode 09:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You agree with him? An admin who removed it then replaced it, and when it was removed again, another admin added it as an inline link. If you read the page on GW conspiracy theory you'll see that Paltridge's book is a classic case. This all means you are a POV editor not interested in even-handed editing, or am I wrong? If I look at your edit history, will I find right-wing leaning edits? Be honest now... ► RATEL ◄ 08:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to stop, and you need to stop now. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a "POV editor not interested in even-handed editing." Unit Anode 14:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And for the record I am also getting very sick indeed of Ratel repeating throughout Wikipedia each time we disagree that I am "always advancing my POV" that "global warming is not real." That is, for the nth time, not my view at all, and I challenge anyone to find an edit I have made that advanced a point of view unsupported by the sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am generally supportive of the theories on AGW, and I am about 80-90% in agreement with Alex's points. There seems to be a misunderstanding that debate == tendentiousness. There are real issues here, especially when dealing with subtle POV on BLPs, and while it may not seem so to Ratel, Alex has been a net positive on several GW-related BLPs. This is not to say Ratel is acting in bad faith. He is obviously very passionate on this issue and that may be causing him to overreact to Alex's points. ATren (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

All I will say about his "passion" for this subject is that it should not lead to him accusing me of being some kind of POV warrior. Unit Anode 14:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

You don't have e-mail enabled, do you? John Carter (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I prefer to keep Wikipedia discussions on-Wiki, sorry. Unit Anode 20:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

You are the one who has indicated you do not want e-mail when asked. I believe, on that basis, that there is a very real chance that there is information not available to you which you seem to be passing judgement on anyway. I cannot see how such an ill-informed judgement made on a comment exchanged between two people who have had quite a bit of interchange about which you don't know anything are themselves particularly helpful. John Carter (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many reasons why a person might not enable email. I prefer to keep WP discussions on-wiki. Unit Anode 16:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And I have no reason to doubt your motivations. Hoever, it does make it very unlikely that you would ever be in a position to know about comments elsewhere. And, sometimes, that information might be directly relevant to comments onwiki. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess my only response would be that there's really no excuse for Mattisse to be calling other editors "disruptive", especially in the context in which she did so. It seems like deflecting, and I felt it needed to at least be addressed. Unit Anode 16:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there might be one particular, reasonable, basis. That is if she thinks their behavior qualifies as per WP:DE. If it used in that connection, it would be good if she had at one point indicated why she believes it applicable, which I'm not sure she did, but it could, potentially, be more a statement of conclusion based on certain events than opinion, and there is a difference there. And, in all honesty, given the generally negative tone of many/most of the comments on her pages, I would expect to see some sort of unhappy responses from her. This is not saying that I would agree with attempts to "deflect" them, but can't fault her for saying, in effect, others do at least as bad. Particularly when both she and I have rather regularly discussed at least one such party. ;) John Carter (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"fundamental misunderstanding"

You said:

Just stop

Your last post at the monitoring page was out-of-line. I was trying to help her, by addressing her "clutter" concern. She even said something like, "At the talkpage? Even better." And then you use that to somehow attack me? Are you seriously agreeing with her fundamental misunderstanding of what that page is for? It's not about her "taking charge" of that page. It's about using that page to keep her from being banned for how she treats other users. What you're doing now is in no way accomplishing that goal. Your last post does her a disservice, and has effectively chased me away from attempting to use that forum again. My next post when she makes these questionable edits will be on the talkpage of an arbitrator. I won't have my integrity impugned in this way again. Unit Anode 01:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

By this statement, you apparently believe that you have the unrestricted right to do what others indicate they might be interested in seeing, but that they themselves do not have a right to clarify what is apparently at best a misunderstanding on your part? Where on earth do you get the idea that you, seemingly alone of all parties there, have this right, which you seem to believe others do not have? Your actions were not appropriate, and your reasons for making them were not well-based. Please also note that the page is a subpage of User:Mattisse, and in general it is in fact the right of the person who in effect "owns" such pages to determine what content is there. You are not that person. Given this rather unexpected, and to my eyes frankly incomprehensible act on your part, and your own rather unusual conduct, I am now I believe obliged to specifically request that you refrain from any other comments on my user page or user talk page. Such truly strange statements as some of the statements above I believe may well be more suited to a broader audience than my user talk page necessarily gets. Thank you for abiding by this request. If you do wish to comment further, please feel free to do so on this page, which I have marked. I do not believe that there would be any cause to add it to the monitoring page. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You have some serious problems, John. I simply moved (per what I saw as her direct request) the conversations to the talkpage. Now, you somehow find my behavior so problematic you find it necessary to proffer some strange "ban" of me from your talkpage? I've posted nothing there that is out of line policy-wise, or in any way inappropriate. I've tried to work with you to help Mattisse. You seem to almost be overtly attempting to thwart that now. The next step is arbitration. Either mentor her (not coddle, "mentor), or that's where it's headed. Unit Anode 01:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My contributions to John's talkpage that led him to "ban" me

I requested he not drag Giano's name into Mattisse's disputes.

I addressed a serious concern I have with his enabling of his mentoree.

I protested his blithe removal of my question.

Thus, am I banned by the same person who acknowledged that I was doing my best to work on things constructively with Mattisse by giving me a barnstar of peace earlier. Quite amazing to me. Unit Anode 01:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not threaten me as you did above sir. Please understand, whatever you may think of your own opinion here, it is not your place to tell other people what to do, as you have now done repeatedly. And it is the, dare I say, arrogance of that act, and the statement that you "I won't have my integrity impugned in this way again" that is to my eyes so troubling. In your own comments above, you not only impugned my integrity but seemingly ordered me to act according to your will and threatened me with retaliation if I didn't. what on earth gives you the right to do that, I wonder. And why are you, as someone who has, so far as I know, now prior history with Mattisse so overwhelming interested in it. Lastly, of course, as I have told you repeatedly, I am probably aware of information which you are not which is a factor in my taking the actions I have. I have in effect offered to send you such information, only to be told "No". Therefore, by your actions, you are seemingly telling me that you don't need to know that information. That is a truly strange statement for someone who has no apparent prior history with Mattisse to make. It does in fact lead to the question, at least in my admittedly suspicious mind, as to whether you may have had some prior contact with Mattisse under, perhaps, a different name earlier? If so, is there any good reason why you have not been forthcoming with that information? If that is true, and I am not categorically saying I believe it to be, I think that withholding such information which others might find relevant in a discussion where you have so obviously seen fit to insert yourself is perhaps not a display of the highest imaginable character. John Carter (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. People can let that screed stand or fall on its own. You say that my saying that you need to mentor her is impugning your integrity, and then you basically insinuate that I'm a liar when I have stated categorically and unequivocally that I have no previous history with Mattisse. None. Either accept that, or call me a liar, I don't care which, but don't pretend that I am the problem here.
I came upon an edit that Mattisse made at SV's page, and reported it to her monitoring page. I have (unfortunately) allowed myself to be drawn in to the strange world that is that page. That, I clearly shouldn't have done. I won't be posting there further, and any further problematic edits she makes to pages I watch will be reported to an arbitrator. Unit Anode 02:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"formal warning"s

Article talk pages are for dicussing improvements to the article. Don't abuse them for "formal warning"s to other editors; these belong, if they have merit, on user talk pages. I've removed it [7] William M. Connolley (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't get to remove other people's comments from any talkpage other than your own. I've restored my comment. Unit Anode 13:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar instructions

Hiya, I happened to read your chat with SilkTork on his talk page, where you said you couldn't figure out how barnstars work. There is a page on how to award the various barnstars at WP:Barnstar; the table there has a "What to Type" column that you can copy the code from. ;) JN 466 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I recently received one, but I wasn't sure exactly how to give one. I'll look at that page before I attempt to give any more. U A 16:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan

Request opened by Moni3 here. --Moni3 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't think it would be wise for me to participate there. Do you disagree? UA 16:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect anything you want to say will be provided by other editors. Karanacs (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  - I agree. And Carter's still making implications about me, and then hounding me when I tried to respond. U A 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Dion Lewis

This is a sincere question, not a troll. You removed the speedy tag from this article with the explanation "clearly asserts notability. this may be a candidate for AFD, but NOT speedy". WP:ATHLETE asserts that athletes are notable if they "have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", which seems to convincingly exclude college players. However, I tagged a similar article recently and it was declined also. Do I misunderstand US college games? I42 (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that this person is notable, just that the article asserts notability, which is all that is required to make A7 not applicable. I'd encourage you to use the PROD template or simply take these type of articles to AfD, where your rationale, citing WP:ATHLETE might very well hold sway. U A 20:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)