Template:Archive box collapsible

Hey Hobit, you and I haven't always got along too well I think, and I once lost my cool in a brief discussion with you. I really appreciate you not holding that against me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hobit - I really want to appreciate your time and effort in analyzing my First Article "Jeeva Artist". First I want to apologize for the inconvenience caused by me. Next the reason I saved it without complete details was - As you know - In India Power Cut is a common issue. I don't have backup. So I want to make sure the start stays there. Once again Thanks. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvrmagesh (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 27, probability of this being notable in a few weeks

Yes, we're not a bureaucracy. However, many many times, articles about future pay-per-view wrestling articles have been created, way ahead of the event itself - whilst they are not notable. So, we end up 'advertising' for them.

I can quite understand the attitude that, yep, it'll be notable in some weeks.

But this happens again, and again, and again.

Examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment. There's lots more. See also ANI archive.

A large number of fans, related to the wiki project, turn up to blindly vote to 'keep' them.

I also ask you to please skim down the user talk page of the person who created "Slammiversary IX", which is User talk:Supermhj8616.

Now - maybe I should just give up on this; I probably will, soon. Because, it seems due process is just being abused. But I hope this message at least explains to you why I took it to DRV in the first place.

Frankly, your comment there seems to be saying "OK, it should have been deleted (according to policies), but because it wasn't, and because it will be notable in some weeks, it's not worth bothering". I can understand that. The trouble is, the precedent it sets.

I hope that makes sense. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  05:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied, User_talk:Chzz#Yep.  Chzz  ►  05:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. zorblek (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobit. Thanks for the RfA support, and for the thought-provoking questions. I'm curious to know where we disagree on 6b, what were your thoughts on that? 28bytes (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, I've added what I believe is relevant info in a matter you commented on at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bill_Slavicsek--Cube lurker (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, I'm quite thankful to you for your statements about the recently created attack essay that was made about me. Your views regarding the inappropriate use of essay space as an attack on an editor, is most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You are welcome Cirt, but honestly I wouldn't care _who_ was being attacked like this--even those I actually see serious fault with. An essay isn't the place for commentary on a user. If they feel that strongly, RfC/U is the way to go (which I don't think is needed/makes sense, but it's still the right forum). Hobit (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hobit — What do you think of my statements regarding my future editing: diff and diff ? — Cirt (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overkill IMO, but certainly should address the perceived issues. Hobit (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why overkill? I'd appreciate it if you could be more specific about how it will address the perceived issues? — Cirt (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd say just staying away from Scientology and Savage should be enough. Certainly enough for me to feel the issue was over and done with. But then I don't see a serious problem with Savage (a bit with Scientology though, and that's as an old ARS semi-regular). Hobit (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, by that reasoning it surely is a good thing for me to focus on other topics such as Supreme Court of the United States cases and the more general topic of Freedom of speech, yes? — Cirt (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yep, it's a good thing, but I'd certainly say you need not just focus on that area. Hobit (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah, understood. Well, just wanted to emphasize as already noted in my above statements, my commitments to not edit DYK again in the future, and focus on those above topics in addition to my prior GA and FA quality improvement projects. Do you have any other advice related to how to address issues pertaining to recent controversy and actions about me? — Cirt (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nope, just keep your head down for a bit. I've always found you to be a fine editor. Best of luck! Hobit (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind words. You deserve much greater props for working to expand the article and keep it relevant - the effort is highly appreciated and reflects well. I apologize for the early close. And yeah, these types of discussions can flare up sometimes. I do my best to maintain a cool atmosphere and help everyone realize that, while we are trying to improve Wikipedia, we mustn't let ourselves get angry with others just because they have differing opinions. Anyway, cheers. Hope to see you around more often. m.o.p 08:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment at VPP, what do you mean about the different kinds of randomness? All articles should have an equal chance of being selected, so our random function (if working correctly) should give a uniform distribution across articles. Isn't IID a subtlety for when you don't know the distribution, but make the assumption that all trials come from the same one? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What I meant was that just because something was random doesn't mean there is a uniform distribution. And yes, I should have used "uniform distribution" rather than IID, though I _think_ in this case they are equivalent. As I mentioned I mess up the terms in class all the time... Hobit (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the issues of the Nation of Gods and Earths article on this noticeboard: [1]. Paul B (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hobit. You have new messages at DracoEssentialis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

I don't like your username, it is extremely offensive to me. Would you consider changing it please? 2.121.53.66 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, likely not. I'd be interested in why you find it offensive though. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's a super passionate Lord of the Rings fan that doesn't even tolerate typos when they aren't even referring to Lord of the Rings?--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's not a typo, it's my username!  :-) Seriously, it's a name I've used on-and-off for years. Hobit (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2]? [3]? [4]? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	For being a calm, reasonable voice amidst tempests of tea. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were saying in the AfD that it was Lewinsky's photography that was giving him the best push, I would ask that you look at the additions that I have made and see whether that is enough to strengthen your Keep vote. Silverseren^C 01:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, I came by to say I felt the discussion was pretty clearly a keep and if you are going to close some other way, it would be helpful to explain why in the closing. I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies at this point as WP:N is (now, after improvements) pretty clearly met even ignoring the "event" in question. If you feel the discussion concluded otherwise, it would be helpful to know that and exactly why. I don't think any of the remaining deletion !votes addressed the improvements to the article... Hobit (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll type up a rationale and add it to the AFD within the next couple days. If you don't find it persuasive you are sincerely invited to take it up on WP:DRV, of course. By the way, the previous comments on my talk page should not be construed as a closing rationale: I'd meant to make that clear in the same comment, but apparently my efforts failed. Regards, causa sui (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a rationale. [5] causa sui (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, I have requested a third opinion on Talk:Michelle_Rhee#Rhee.27s_opinion_on_vouchers, which I believe means we leave it alone for six days or so. The request is now listed on the active disagreement section.Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "reduce his bandwidth" and "spam the discussion." Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk)

Hi,

I saw your post at the RfC on the first sentence of WP:V, and you usually have insightful opinions.  Please take a look at WP:Inaccuracy, which is purposed to be a guideline linked from WP:V and WP:NPOV.  One of the comments today had words to the effect of "if it were promoted", which makes me wonder if others see this essay as close to being promoted to a guideline.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded (a day or so late) to your comment; I hope you'll take it in the spirit in which it was offered. Take care, Drmies (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone's going to agree 100% of the time. Best to you! Trusilver 21:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I would like to continue the discussion if you are interested. I don't think what I quoted is "my" guideline: it's a direct quote from WP:GNG/WP:N. ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.") I argue that if a subject meets WP:N he need not meet the subject specific guideline. And in fact WP:BIO makes that pretty clear ("A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.") I think I'm reading the letter of the law (well of the guideline) correctly. "Rules As Written (RAW)" if you will. It seems very obvious to me, but perhaps there is a different way to read the RAW. If so, I'd like to understand it. Or are you arguing that the "Rules As Intended" (RAI) are something different than the literal reading of RAW? Or are you arguing that the rules are simply wrong? I get the sense, by labeling the quote as "my" rule, that we disagree on RAW. In any case, I'd love to hear your reasoning.

In all cases, thanks again for the thought. I only wish the virtual beer weren't so virtual... Hobit (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My position on it is that if we use ONLY the general notability guidelines, then damn never everything becomes notable. If we are using only those guidelines, then there really isn't a need for anything else, such as WP:ATHLETE or WP:CREATIVE or whatever, because those guidelines only serve to set stricter parameters on what is already broadly permitted under WP:GNG. If we rely only on that broad guideline then I would have an article myself. Should I have one? Hell no, but it would be allowable under the general notability guidlines... that's why we have further guidelines such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E that prevent such a thing. If Drmies is around, and talk page stalking, I wonder if he could do a big favor and userfy an article for me, Erik A. Williams is the name, it's one that I happen to remember because the guy is on the cusp of being notable and made a huge self-promotional circus about his article being deleted. If we can get a copy of that article as it existed before the RfA, I am curious what your evaluation of it is. Trusilver 05:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that makes more sense. I agree that RAW requires WP:N is further narrowed by things like WP:NOT and BLP1E. I disagree that RAW allows further narrowing with things like WP:ANYBIO. In fact those subject-specific guidelines generally defer to WP:N. I realize you feel that leads to too many topics being notable. It turns out that I find they exclude topics I think we should cover. But those are the rules we've got. And I think given the goals of Wikipedia and the pillar of WP:PAPER we are hard pressed to cover too much (with the possible exception of BLPs) if we can find good and reasonable sources on which to base an article. Hobit (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a really good one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Edward and Austin Bryant (2nd nomination). I said delete on this, but I am now on the fence about it. This easily passes WP:GNG, but I think it has issues with WP:BLP1E and WP:VICTIM, still it has slightly unique circumstances that make me want to err on the side of caution and keep it. Trusilver 06:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might well have a NOTNEWS issue, but I really don't think there is a BLP1E issue (it's not a BLP and in fact BLP1E encourages articles on the event rather than the person). Key question is on-going coverage. There is some, but it's pretty minor. I'd as soon cover something like this, but I think RAW is debatable here. I'll likely not !vote as I tend to only do so when I think I've got the whole picture. At the moment I'd close it as a keep or maybe NC. Both sides are reasonable, but consensus seems to be leaning on the keep side. Hobit (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's the fact that it's already shifting to one side which is keeping me from digging too much more into it, this one is basically already over. Marginal notability issues like that are the reason that I don't like WP:PROD. the Japanese Wikipedia had a nearly successful campaign to get rid of PROD altogether, and I think that it wouldn't be a bad idea for us to get rid of it, I think that it's a redundant system next to CSD and AfD, and doesn't have the same oversight. Obscure articles that are notable are vulnerable to be deleted under prod because of the lack of real oversight (or interest, I've seen prodded articles sit for a week past the delete date because there is an off and on lack of interest in prod among admins). Trusilver 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if that's what we're doing, I think I can top that. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see that not as a one-up, but rather an excellent example of synergy. A falafel and a beer doesn't sound half bad. Trusilver 21:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that. Certainly better than being in the lab at 11:30pm on a Saturday. But if I get only one, at the moment I'll take the beer! Hobit (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck to you, too! Let me know if you ever need my help with anything on here! There's a few things I can do halfway decent!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, Hobit (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?. You participated in the previous RFC on the lead image, Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4#Lead image RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting you because you participated in either the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in a redirect or the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review#Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in restoration of the article because it was once a "Blue Ribbon School". I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#US elementary schools: Inherent notability: for "Blue Ribbon Schools" as to whether the 5200 schools which have been found awarded the "Blue Ribbon" seal of approval get inherent notability, or if they each have to satisfy WP:ORG via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Your input is welcome.Thanks! Edison (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help with the BSN page.

Shall I just start editting the BSN article on your page from now on?

Please also let me know if it is alright to invite other colleagues to contribute to the page editting as well. (Airuko (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Hobit, I think we have addressed the COI issue and highlighted the differences between BSN and BAN. Could you please have a look to see if the page looks alright? (Airuko (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

If possible, I would like to ask for 2-3 more days to add more information to the page, but I would like to ask for your comments first. Thank you very much again in advance. (203.131.209.66 (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Things look better, but honestly I don't have time to look closely. I'd eliminate the quote in bold in the lede (or at least cite it and put it in quotes) but we can address that later... I'll try to jump on this on Sat. Hobit (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year. I hope you haven't forgotten about the BSN page. If you have time, please have a look and give me some comments. (Airuko (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you x 2

Thanks for the feedback at WP:AN, much appreciated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite disappointed you didn't trust me enough to have thought this through properly and that you challenged the close on my talk before actually reading the reasons for my action. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, no. No, trust wasn't the issue--just my own stupidity. I just screwed up and didn't think to check the (new) closing statement. Completely inexcusable on my part. (Thus the facepalm in my edit summary.) It's been a long couple of weeks (I'm at work right now and should really be doing that rather than this as I'm missing my son in a Christmas Pageant). On that note, I'm leaving WP for the rest of the day. Got plenty of other things to do and I'm making a mess of things on WP it seems. Best of luck and sorry if it seemed I was implying something bad about you! I entirely see where you are coming from, I just don't think deletion was the correct outcome there. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobit. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would rather cut off my wrist then be seen to be doing anything like a talkback but I want to make sure you did get the message that the thread two sections up had no bearing on my decision to drop the bit. I sent you a long email. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 8, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hobit, I appreciate your feedback on Katie_Harwood. Since this is my first attempt at an article I am still learning my way through. I guess I am still confused about what OR is. Much of the info for the article came from the production notes, official website and interviews on the extra features and behind the scenes portion of the DVD. Are words spoken and concepts demonstrated on a DVD not eligible as an official WP source? Tola73 22:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please do something about this discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_December_23&action=history. It seems like it has continued forever, without resolution. Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hobit. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.
Message added 13:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, this article was successfully relisted over at AfD on the 15th. If you're still interested, would you be willing to help track down an expert in the field?   — C M B J   14:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your query at RAN's talkpage on January 20[6], indicating that that copyvio was the same in four or five articles, with plenty of evidence, but RAN "archived" (removed) that section and much more the same day, without replying to it[7]. Fram (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I poked Fram for using a template, but now realize why he did so. I responded at Fram's talk page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an admin... wow that is surprising. That being said, I could see that you might have a challenge passing an RfA... too outspoken. But I had thought you were one.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit has that authoritative voice, and a cool username to match. Let's face it, Balloonman, mine is unpronouncable and yours, well, it has a balloon in it, which is cute but does not inspire awe. Hey Hobit, how are you? Drmies (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

busy as heck (kid getting medical care, midterms to write, etc.) but starting to return. Thanks for the kind words from the both of you! Hobit (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good luck to both of you then. I'm sure you have a real nice kid and that everything goes well. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope everything goes well with you and your kid. When you are back, please help me look at the BSN page. We need some direction whether the page looks alright or what else should be modified. Thank you very much in advance. (Airuko (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 07:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Hobit. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgette B (2nd nomination).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Hobit. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, just a heads-up that I've mentioned you in the course of a discussion about Fae at WP:AN#Moving forward. Prioryman (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as you took part in the 1st AFD for Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention that after a second AFD with the same result, a discussion on whether to merge or not has opened on the article talk page. BOZ (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to have to block you for your comments since they, eh, insult an officer of the court or something like that. This is Wikipedia, Hobit--we can't have people who honestly speak their mind on important matters. I disagree, of course, both on the candidate and on the injunction of WP:V etc., but it's always good to see you're still around. Who knows, one of these days the bug will bite you and you'll create another article! ;) Drmies (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• From requested articles: Asymmetric Logical Unit Access - Gonadostat - GASP phenotype - Riesz summation - Space frontier - Upstaging. Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, created one a few months back. Enough for now :-). I don't quite get Bbb23's idea though. We have a massive (and I do mean massive) amount of uncited material. It probably is greater than the cited material by a fair bit in fact. Just blanking all of it would be highly destructive. I asked the question to see if he had some reason to believe the material was flawed and he didn't bite. Actions which would be destructive if everyone did them aren't a good idea. I don't mind him being honest. I mind that his actions are so problematic. But there is the joy of being an inclusionist. I see the unneeded removal of material from the project as vandalism. And that was unneeded. And Asymmetric Logical Unit Access would be a pretty horrible topic for an article IMO. It's a bit sad we debate about popular culture topics like episodes of a show seem by 50+ million people, but something like ALUA is something that would probably be kept even though only 500 people probably could even get anything of use out of a well-written article. Hobit (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, one problem with unverified material is that it's difficult to determine is something is messed with. "Do you have any reason to believe the material is flawed?" is as valid a question as "Do you have any reason to believe the material is correct?" Imagine that in an article on some medication or, worse, some sex article. Next thing you know Jimmy Wales has a lawsuit pending cause someone stuck a flat-screen TV up their ass and turned it to Tosh-0, cause Wikipedia said it was highly erotic. Anyway, we have to agree to disagree--but I think you know he's not going to run around as an admin imposing his standards on others. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I mentioned in my !vote, I like much of what he's done. But I view this as going enough "off the rails" that I am actually worried. I've little doubt he'll make it, but I'm hopeful raising the issue will make it less likely he's misuse the bit. I do think the best outcome here would be failing and coming back having thought about it. Some of the best admins we have are deletionist-leaning admins (kww, ScottyWang) who have had to mature a bit before getting the bit. Thanks for dropping by!Hobit (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, to respond to the philosophical point, we don't delete article or material just because it's uncited. WP:DEL and WP:V make that really quite plain. And from an outcome-based viewpoint, if I _could_ magically delete all unsourced material on Wikipedia with a snap of my fingers I certainly hope you'd agree that would be a horrible thing. We'd lose more than 50% of our content, and maybe as much as 80%. I'd think that would make it plain that just deleting the content without an actual doubt is a bad idea. WP:BLPPROD is an exception and the only one I know of to this general rule. Hobit (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hobit. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
Message added 02:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

SudoGhost 02:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at WT:DRV#DRV bot request? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Princess_Sally_Acorn

I'd like to get your thoughts on this, since you were the one who undid the redirect on the grounds that you'd like some discussion to take place.

Also, for the record, there has already been quite a bit of discussion on it, it just happened to be on my talk page. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sergecross73#Sally

Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, didn't think to check your talk page. I'll look more closely in a bit (day or two probably) if that's okay. Hobit (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. I had never bothered to make the conversation more readily available to read, because it seemed like a pretty open and shut case. The redirect had initially been undone after 2 years, purely based on a uninformed user who felt it should exist because worse articles existed out there. Then the conversation degraded into rage that "fan art didn't count towards the WP:GNG". But by all means, feel free to peruse... Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, had time to read this. I agree it should be a redirect. Hobit (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for hearing me out. I've changed it back, now that I've got your support. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed broadening there. Please join in. --George Ho (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which I withdrew roughly one hour prior to the deadline. I appreciate your sentiments — it's great to know that my imput is valued. Hopefully we'll continue to bump into each other around the place.

Take care. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 22:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were a discussant at User_talk:Fram#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAshton_Kutcher_on_Twitter_.282nd_nomination.29, you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 20.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At one point I didn't even care about the article anymore. I couldn't take the hypocrisy of some of the editors I was talking to. I probably could have behaved better, But I was simply acting out of emotion and was upset no one was understanding my points. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your eloquent, comprehensive closure of Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#RFC: To atheist or not to atheist and your generally excellent work at WP:ANRFC. I've noticed that you've cited Wikipedia:Non-admin closure at the end of each of your closures. While I have no objection to your continuing to do so, I don't think it's accurate or necessary. WP:NAC only discusses deletion discussions, so I don't think it's accurate to cite it in an RfC closure. I also don't think admins can unilaterally overturn any non-admin closures of RfCs about content because admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD. This current WP:AN discussion makes for an excellent read if you haven't been following it. In fact, in my observations, I've found that your closures demonstrate policy cluefulness, depth, and insight far superior to a few administrator closures I've seen. Please continue your good work at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree the link I'm linking to with the NAC isn't the right one, but I *do* want to make it clear I'm not pretending to be an admin and the link makes it obvious. Maybe I'll write an essay on the topic and link to that :-).

But thank you very much for your kind words. I find I'm not a good content writer, but I do know my way around policy discussions well enough to be able to read and condense long discussions. I may have found a home (at least until work starts up again at full speed--the joys of teaching...) Hobit (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can say "(non-admin closure)" at the end of your closing rationale with no link at all (though a link to an essay on the topic that emphasized admins have not special control over content would be better). Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Pitfalls to avoid states: "Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous. With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions." Linking to the essay gives the impression that your closures of controversial RfCs can be unilaterally overturned by an admin, which is unacceptable because admins do not have special control over content. I look forward to reading more of your closures before you return to the important job of enriching and educating the minds of students hungry for knowledge. Best, Cunard (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for another insightful close at Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 19#RfC - Handling promotional usernames. I've had no luck at getting an admin to follow Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability regarding his inadequately explained RfC closes (diff). It's unfortunate that all closers can't be as willing to explain themselves as you are. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look good, I agree. That said, the username RfC close kinda sucked because I just couldn't see a good way forward. Oh well... Hobit (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion at the username RfC was too disparate to reach a firm consensus for any changes, but you made the best of it by listing the three principles that had appreciable consensus. Hopefully, the ongoing RfC at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC: Hard/soft blocks of promotional usernames will reach a consensus or the RfC proposer will be better next time at framing the RfC to allow for concrete proposals. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckle. Just saw this as I was scrolling to the bottom of this page. I am the RfC proposer in question. To be candid, my intention was not to frame the discussion around anything specific. I simply wanted to use the RfC to generate some general discussion on a mostly unwatched talk page, in order to get a feel for some prevailing thoughts before I considered discreet issues, like specific block types, etc. I understand that this is not exactly orthodox of RfCs . . but I don't think all RfCs need to be concrete, or officially closed . . especially that one, which is why I didn't request one. But it was still of course useful. A good mental exercise for Hobit, if anything. NTox · talk 04:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I need those :-). In any case, I think the second RfC was a bit more clear and focused. Hobit (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC began with the questions: "When should usernames in the form of a company, organization, group, website, product, or internet address be blocked from editing? Should they be blocked immediately? Should they be blocked only when they have edited in the topic area connected to the name (constructively or not)?" When I listed it at WP:ANRFC, I found the questions posed to be reasonable and specific. However, I had not read the entire discussion, so didn't know the RfC devolved into too many disparate issues that rendered assessing the consensus to be difficult. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking of eloquent closes, I got an eloquent revert of a close: "This is wrong." Drmies (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that is a fun response. That _was_ a hard one to close and hits on nationalistic issues that are pretty raw which just amplifies the issues. Enjoy the fallout. (For the record, I don't see how else it could have been closed). Hobit (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my talk page. Apparently I know nothing at all, but fortunately I have some smart people telling me what to do. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see why they are frustrated--I'd just urge you to be a bit more patient with them. It _is_ odd that Wikipedia is using an old name for the island rather than what it is generally called today. But WP:COMMONNAME would seem to nearly require it. I'd suggest to them they should take their comments to WP:COMMONNAME (which maybe they already have) and see if folks agree with them that the broader guideline is mistaken and modern usage should trump older (though more highly published) usage. But I tend to AGF more than is perhaps healthy for me. Plus, frankly, it doesn't matter as either name will get them to the article so my level of empathy is a bit on the low side. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it's at Move Review now, or whatever it's called. Funny--as I said elsewhere, history seems to move toward the Turkish name and the Greek name is fighting a losing battle. Troy may win after all! But evidence brought forward suggests it does not seem to be there yet, and that discussion got at least partly derailed by an SPA and some possible IP socking, not to mention too much heat and not enough light. It's been going on for six years... Drmies (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't want to follow up on the RM or whatever about Bozcaada to avoid cluttering and am really just trying to understand better, not trying to refight points. You say that the move is reasonable because 10:1 usage outweighs official name. Cool, I agree that is (and probably should be the rule). My problem is that the 10 are talking about an island in the Odyssey (which, by the way, may not even be this island) and the 1 is talking about the actual island as it exists. I'm fine with the rule being 10:1 usage outweighs official name, but my reading of the naming conventions for geographic places is 1. "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." (emphasis on modern context added by me) and 2. If there isn't a common English name, which since every atlas and Encyclopedia uses Bozcaada, I think saying Tenedos is the common name is highly problematic, "the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present...should be used." I'm fine if community understanding says these don't matter, but no one explained to me this on the discussion they just accused me and repeated Google Books raw hit counts. So my question is this: When 10 is talking about a literary place in the past, and 1 is talking about the actual place as it exists, why are we ignoring the modern context and official name guidelines? I'm cool if that's what the norm is, but it isn't what the guidelines say to me and no one on the Bozcaada discussion would even talk about it with me (despite multiple pleas for us to talk about this point). Thanks very much for the time. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spent some time reading and thinking about this. You have a valid point IMO. We've got two guidelines that do seem to be somewhat contradictory (one places a lot more weight on the modern name than the other). While I still think the closer made the best call given the split !vote and both sides having valid policy to stand on, I will admit I might well have !voted with the move side (but I'd have still closed with the non-move side). Hobit (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Good points all around, I appreciate your time on the issue. I'm not sure I have a valid point (or not) honestly, but it appears to me that community norms and community guidelines are not quite inline with one another (maybe this is the source of the different community guidelines that are contradictory). And, as someone new to the community, such discrepancies cause significant problems for understanding a) appropriate claims that are in the guidelines but against norms and b) claims that convince people. I'm sure I'll figure out how the community is reading and delineating the various guidelines and their provisions with more time (although the love for google books, which is an atrocious resource when you open it up, will remain mystifying), and hopefully more engagement with experienced users like yourself. Despite any disagreements with the reasoning, I do respect the closer for making the call in a tough situation and honestly think the closer did a good job. Thank you very much for your time. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the very civil and insightful comments! We'll see how it goes.Hobit (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about preserving information on D&D monsters, you may be interested in joining the discussion at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this discussion. I'm notifying you because you participated in the first deletion discussion and/or the deletion review. LadyofShalott 16:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hobit. You may have noticed that I put in a close request for the RfC at WT:U - see this entry. Thought you might be a good choice to look at it since you have the context as the closer of the other one. Have a good one. NTox · talk 03:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it is not as abstract as that one, too. NTox · talk 04:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your service there is appreciated. Can't be easy. NTox · talk 18:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. In general I'd watch out for asking specific folks to close things, it can be argued to introduce a bias in some way (because you liked work by that person in the past or because they might think more favorably of you in the future or some other reason someone comes up with). If that RfC were a close call I'd likely have skipped it on that basis. Best to made a more generic appeal. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks for the tip. NTox · talk 18:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably a lot more paranoid about that stuff than most, so take it with a big grain of salt. :-) Hobit (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that generally, approaching specific editors for closes is inadvisable. But I found it acceptable in this circumstance because you had closed the previous related RfC and thus could take it into account in your assessment of the second RfC. Second, you hadn't expressed an opinion on the matter after your close and remained uninvolved, so I don't see anything improper here. However, had the discussion been contentious, I agree that approaching you may lead other RfC participants to use that as an excuse for having the judgment voided so you would have been wise to avoid closing it based on a specific request. Cunard (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for demonstrating good faith on AN/I. I didn't intend any gloating and I don't see any gloating in the notice, so I would think that the right thing to do would be to ask me about my intentions instead of assuming the worst. If it had gone that route, we'd all have avoided a trip to the drama factory. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, but at the same time when tempers are tight, the best thing to do is strike a comment like that once someone objects. I'd have been pissed about someone removing the comment if I'd meant it in good faith/humor, but I still suggest the best course of action is to let it go. In any case, good luck! Hobit (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I almost always strike anything that someone objects to, just so long as it seems plausible that it might actually be viewed as uncivil by someone. Here, I just didn't see it, and still don't. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I can see it if I squint. It could be viewed as taunting someone who can't respond. Hobit (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you were a contributor to a previous DRV on the Freemasons category there is another deletion discussion on this. JASpencer (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:Flaming/MC2008)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Hobit, how is it going? I was wondering what you have done on Wikipedia in terms of content creation. I can't seem to find much, is that correct? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• True enough, my interest is mainly in policy and dispute resolution. My I ask why you asked the question? Hobit (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. I liked your edits on the Last Res0rt DRV, finding what I think is the right balance between policy, common sense, and ignoring all rules, without being afraid of reprimanding everyone messing up there - which pretty much was everybody, emphatically including me. I find those properties very important, and to me, that reads as good possible admin material. I was checking your edits for what I thought your chances would be for a possible RfA, and if it was a reasonable investment for me to continue investigating, to see if I should offer to nominate you. I saw very little content work, which could be problematic in case you would be tempted to accept a nomination. Being lazy, I figured I'd ask you, rather than going through all your mainspace edits. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the nice thoughts. I get a bit defensive about my lack of content creation. It is the most important work we do here and I suck at it. I'm good at finding sources, okay at sourcing articles (I tackled a dozen or so BLPs in the aftermath of the BLP-prod stuff) and I've created a couple, but on the whole I find it very difficult to write sourced content. Which is weird, because I probably write 20+ pages of text a week for work. It's just very different writing. Hobit (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Hobit. Thanks for your support at AN. If my case needs to be accounted for, then I'd be happy to help you in any efforts to make that happen. I'm concerned with fluffernutter's comments, for example, because he has forgotten that by registering, students may allow themselves to be contacted (through their talkpages). For me personally, unrestricted access to communicate with my students... That seems like a nono against COPPA (which, by the way, does affect Wikipedia because of infrastructure and wikimedia in the US).

For the record, in Australia we have more restrictive laws etc. than COPPA. While I have permission for student work to be published online and elsewhere, allowing students to register at Wikipedia would be a completely different story. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, I see exactly where you are coming from. That said, I'm in the situation of agreeing with you on nearly every issue I've seen but being troubled by the way you've dealt with some of those issues. I'd urge you to not be so passionate about issues here. You are trying to "right great wrongs" (things I see as wrong also) but are probably hurting your cause in many cases more than helping it. Your interactions with TParis got _way_ over the top IMO. I think he could have handled things better (he's philosophically more in line with Epeefleche than you which I think led to some unconscious bias), but you made it way too personal. He's a good guy and good admin (though one I often disagree with). I'd urge you to just step away from the issue for a while (I really like the idea of you and E not interacting...), though I realize that can feel a lot like giving up on something you care about. I've had to do it from time to time... Eh, my 2 cents. Best of luck, Hobit (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember that one of the reasons we forbid role accounts is that there is no way to ensure proper copyright licensing if we don't know which person performed an edit. Unless every single person entrusted with an account's log-in was a signatory to a valid and binding perpetual contract, they have not waived their right to claim copyright in their edits. Nothing is supposed to go into Wikipedia which is not fully licensed under our terms and conditions, in order to facilitate re-use and republication. How could we do that if some parent in Old North Woolloomooloo could come along and say, "Our Deirdre wrote that when she was eleven, and we claim AU$5,000,000,000 for violating her copyright in her edits!"? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • A very good point. That said, I suspect this can be easily dealt with. Not exactly sure _how_ or if it's worth the cost, but that's why we discuss... Hobit (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The context in which I'm working is that schools have releases that allow for publication of student work online, signed by the student themselves and parent/guardian. It is often specified that this publication may be in any form, although it is also often specified that their work be anonymised to hinder/prevent identification of individual students or an individual student's work (so the form at the school at which all of MrJuddsStudents edit have occured specified that student work will be anonymous or, at most, first name only). I suspect that schools in other countries have similar such forms. This is the only way that we can work, for example, with things like wikispaces, prezi, or Edmodo, which are used in (almost) every class from Year 2 up (and I know of some schools that use these services from K up), where group accounts are occasionally used (for example in groupwork), and where all of which have TOS's that deal with the way that IP is managed (just as Wikipedia does). OrangeMike: If you don't mind my asking, why were/are you not raising this as an issue at, either the AN thread, my talkpage, or on User talk:MrJuddsStudents? If not through the AN thread, how did you stumble upon the issue? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, the username came up on one of our noticeboards as an obvious role account name, which is simply and flatly forbidden under our current rules, with no room for discretion. In order to create an account like this legitimately, you'd have to change the rules beforehand, which for the reasons I outlined would probably run afoul of our legal beagles. No hostility toward Danjel or any of the kids themselves was involved in any way; I'm a Campus Ambassador myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive244#Violation_of_WP:NOSHARE, and separately at ANI. But by that time the the issue had been closed, and had been noted as closed at ANI. If you disagreed with the closer, why couldn't you have reopened the thread? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll admit it, I'm lazy. Are we being told that in fact Orangemike just went ahead and blocked the account regardless of the noticeboard outcome? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge1000: yes. The thread at AN was closed at 05:30, January 29, 2013 AEDT (diff), the account was notified that it was blocked at 07:47, January 31, 2013 AEDT (diff), and the thread was archived at 08:04, January 31, 2013 AEDT (diff). So, I might have been wrong wherever I said that the thread had already been archived. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few things I need to discuss with Philippe, so I'll add this to the list. I'm famously indolent, so don't expect me to get round to it quickly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand any part of what you said just then. What list? Who's Philippe? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's the Wikimedia Foundation's legal beagle aforementioned. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike - sorry for not being clearer. (For absolute clarity, Geoff Brigham is the legal beagle, but I normally ask Philippe things first because Philippe has often been asked a similar question many times before, and thus already knows the answer.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny how this concern about copyright doesn't extend to people editing from shared IP's. Or PR firms hired by the foundation. Or WMF staff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• RfC here for those of you who wish to contribute. Hobit (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have responded to your question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Chang Rickert. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, that was quite detailed! Hobit (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've always had the sense that he "gets it" in terms of copyright, but the CCI mess made it look like he was a satanic copyright babykiller. I took a couple hours today deconstructing that. His early material under investigation, circa 2006 and thereabouts, is a mess with about 46% of the pages edited found problematic (n=258) , but the 10th subpage, with the new material, is almost completely "clean" (99.7%, n=298). In short, he does "get it." He doesn't make his lot any easier by having the typical Grumpy Old Content Creator personality (as do I), but he does "get it." The key, I think, is that he does need to serve time in the penalty box for breaking the topic ban, he does need to have very specific instructions and limitations about graphics uploads and external linking, and he does need to have his creation ban relaxed — because, as you may know, a content-creator who can't start articles is pretty much paralyzed and winds up watching TV instead of editing... You might consider volunteering your services as a "copyright advisor" since I'm clearly a non-starter in that department owing to ANI fisticuffs. Anyway, progress forward, hopefully this will all be resolved rapidly at ANI if ArbCom declines the case. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I generally agree. I'm not able to help out much -- too busy with the rest of life and the last thing I need is something pressing to do on Wikipedia. But BOZ (an admin) has expressed at least a bit of interest with helping out (after I asked him...) Hobit (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I think you're up on this, Hobit, this is pro forma...) I have written a proposed remedy to the Richard Arthur Norton affair, to be taken to AN/I in the event that ArbCom defers the case. Since the original thread is hatted, the proposal has been made on his talk page (User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)). As you were a participant in the original thread, I would very much appreciate your comments as to whether the proposed remedy satisfies your concerns. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 23, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not be aware that the RFC/U on Epeefleche's approach to removing easily and obviously verifiable content has closed. Epeefleche essentially ignored you and I, and refused to respond to the main point of my criticism. The closing admin, also, has gone on to completely ignore your and my perspectives also in taking Epeefleche's side. Yes, there was a roughly two-thirds split against my position (keeping in mind that there was some circumstantial evidence of offwiki canvassing, including that Epeefleche has a background of doing exactly that), but that's not a unanimous enough reason to categorically ignore one side, and then to criticise me. This is an outright endorsement of the strategies and approaches used by Epeefleche's side, i.e., that wikidramamongering is an effective defence against any criticism and to silence opponents.

I no longer care. This is the final nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned regarding the culture at wikipedia. I have retired, primarily due to the admin conduct around the wikidrama of this RFC/U, and do not intend to return. There are other communities around the web that I have found which are far less combative and far less tolerant of dramamongers, and perhaps I'll see you there. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm honestly at the point that I think they need to stay, perhaps for years. That there was such a large conflict of interest that hurt Wikipedia was troubling. That folks continually are trying to remove a limitation which _should_ be irrelevant (as it should be a really small fraction of DYKs) worries me. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess the question is what purpose would be served by continuing the restrictions. What do you see as their continued purpose? Prioryman (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To prevent further abuse. I can't see how the restrictions could be harmful and I get the sense that removing them might be. Hobit (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Does that apply to all the restrictions? For instance, there is a restriction on the frequency of Gibraltar-related DYKs (1 per day maximum), another requiring two reviewers, another restricting who can conduct reviews. Do you envisage a situation in which a gradual lifting of the restrictions might be an alternative to lifting them in one go? Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• At some point, sure--I'd prefer to see them go slowly than quickly just to be careful. But in my mind that point may (ideally) be years away. Weighing the pros vs. cons of keeping these restrictions around leads me to think that pros greatly outweigh the cons. There is no good reason they should be having a significant impact--these type of DYK nominations should be extremely rare given the nature of the topic. Hobit (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm genuinely confused as to why you say "these type of DYK nominations should be extremely rare given the nature of the topic." What is it about the nature of the topic that would make the nominations extremely rare? Prioryman (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Same thing that would make DYK nominations about Northern Indiana rare: it's a fairly small geographic area given the world as a whole. I very much doubt a restriction on Northern Indiana articles that are the same as the ones proposed here would be problematic because they'd impact so few articles. I also suspect these restrictions would have had minimal impact as written, say 3 years ago. Do you disagree with either of those statements? If so, I'd be interested in a count on either of those cases of DYKs. Hobit (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure Northern Indiana would be the best comparison given that territory is bigger than 19 European countries! For the sake of comparison, there have been 85 DYKs on Gibraltar in the last year, compared to 115 on Indonesia, 112 on mushrooms, 277 on the Olympics or 128 on the Paralympics (see the table at User:Prioryman/DYK data). Nobody has complained that we've had too many on any topic other than Gibraltar. But it's an inappropriate comparison for another reason. Gibraltar has historically been very under-covered on Wikipedia, not least because Internet access there has been slow and expensive - not many people from the territory have been able to contribute to Wikipedia. Until recently it's had very little presence on DYK (6 DYK hooks mentioning Gibraltar in 2008, 7 in 2009, 5 in 2010 and only 1 in 2011). The recent expansion in coverage has been about catching up, in a sense. One additional point is that a limit on DYKs for any topic would be completely arbitrary. Who decides whether one topic should receive more or less coverage than another? On what criteria? Prioryman (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not catch something else up? Say Northern Indiana. Or any place else. The issues that caused this to be an issue are a darn fine reason to keep the restrictions. Again, I don't see significant harm in keeping them but I do see that the area caused significant harm in the past and is too much of a risk going into the future. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, thanks for your feedback. Prioryman (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your sensible comments regarding my DRV request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although Pigsonthewing did not articulate a reasoned objection to the close, you (Hobit) did. Based on those objections, changing the outcome of the AFD to "withdrawn" was an appropriate step to take, so I endorse Spartaz's resolution and I hope it addressed your concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my reasoning not once but twice on MZMcBride;s talk page, the second time in reply to your request; then again in the DRV request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on Spartaz's talk page, it was a good close and addressed the needed points. Thanks to all.Hobit (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the most recent messages, which includes evidence of the same behavior on Alan's part over the course of at least the past 6 years, and a call for a resolution. Can you please offer your thoughts? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a lot of text. Might indicate an RFC/U is the next step. But you'll need another endorser. In my _very_ quick look at things, I'd say the issues are on both sides, but I haven't looked deeply enough to form a real opinion. I will try to do so in the next couple of days, but no promises. Hobit (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AutomaticStrikeout  ?  is wishing you a Happy Memorial Day! On this day, we recognize our fellow countrymen who have fought our nation's battles for the past several hundred years, protecting our freedom and safety. We remember those who paid the ultimate price and we support those who continue to willingly sacrifice their safety for the sake of their country. Happy Memorial Day!

Share this message by adding ((subst:Memorial Day)) to a fellow American's talk page.

Hello, Hobit. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_June_17.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Since you mentioned the oppose rationale, i thought you'd be interested in reading my oppose in WP:Requests for adminship/Adjwilley. Pass a Method talk 01:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hobit. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 02:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your comments on my DRV jagger eaton. This seems to be languishing in DVR. Is there anything that can be done to move this forward? Anything you can do to help? Thanks. Labeach2002 (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobit, I just wanted to say thanks for closing that RfC. I think you read consensus well and explained the close very clearly. Good work! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Mark. I was more than mildly nervous about it, so I appreciate your feedback! Hobit (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too for closing it in the first place, and for your explanation and suggestions too. Bencherlite^Talk 13:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Hobit (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hobit.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Hobit! I noticed that you made mention of the University of Michigan or Ann Arbor on your userpage. If you are a current student, faculty, or other affiliate at the University of Michigan, I would like to welcome you, on behalf of the Michigan Wikipedians, to our next weekly meeting on Monday September 30 (and every Monday thereafter). The meetings are held at 8:00 PM (EDT) in the University of Michigan Shapiro Library, room 4041. New and experienced editors alike are most welcome. Do not hesitate to leave me a message if you have any questions, and feel free to stop by the MWiki talk page. The Michigan Wikipedians are excited to meet you! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comments at User_talk:Johnmoor#Paid_editing.3F. Do you have any evidence, or is this just a WP:DUCK concern? I'm currently considering having his behavior reviewed at ANI given his WP:OWN problems with Grammarly. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked a bit closer at his editing, and I think your concerns are justified. Still, did you find evidence or is this a WP:DUCK concern? --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Big time DUCK. Though his ability to get pictures released by the subject is perhaps the strongest evidence. I have a really good imagination, but I'm having a very hard time imagining who would pick these subjects and argue so much for them unless they had a massive COI. Hobit (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to step in, but I've had Johnmoor listed as an ODesk-based paid editor for a while. The Grammarly article was recreated by MooshePorkFace from an ad in Elance in January 2012, and then deleted again after MooshiePorkFace was detected. I don't have a record of Johnmoor being hired to recreate it, and the employer from Elance hasn't hired anyone since, but it could be a private job on ODesk or one where the employer was more careful (after the previous result) of identifying the project. I can't link to the ODesk account, as Johnmoor uses his real name and I don't wish to out him. - Bilby (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I've had Johnmoor listed as an ODesk-based paid editor for a while." Thanks for stepping in. Could you elaborate? Even without a coi, his behavior is extremely problematic. With a coi, I think it's a simple block, maybe even indef block. A strong coi-case would make it all much simpler.

MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs)? Sounds extremely familiar... I noticed from article logs that Johnmoor has recreated deleted articles that were previously part of spam/coi/sock investigations, I haven't taken the time to track down the relevant accounts and discussions. If he's socking, then this will be very simple indeed. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnmoor I identified a while back, as he is quite open on ODesk and had a lot of contracts through there - in the order of about 40 in the last 2 years. I did raise it with him at one point, but generally he's been one of the less problematic paid editors - mostly the usual semi-notable BLPs and company articles, with only a couple of cases of spam jobs that were reverted.

The connection with MooshiePorkFace was interesting, but I've never felt that they were the same person. I haven't seen any evidence of socking, as that's one of the things I would have acted on, but I'll check what I have and see if I missed something. It isn't unusual for clients to hire an editor after their article was deleted, either because the previous contractor was unable to protect it, or because they tried to make it themselves. - Bilby (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Probably no direct socking then. I'm not clear on the community's reactions to paid editing. I'm going to take it to WP:COIN and see what happens. He's certainly not following WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know when you've posted something at COIN Ronz... Hobit (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at COIN. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I do not do any paid editing, because it's not time-income effective for me. If a client asks me about Wikipedia I may advise them how to work with the community to get things done within policy, e.g. post suggestions to talk pages, announce themselves and answer any question. Once in a while I might introduce them to an editor who is willing to fix up their article in exchange for a charitable donation. My feeling is that if Wikipedia gets a better article, the business receives value and pays for it, and the editor is happy that some charity benefited, then it is ethical. Jehochman ^Talk 17:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I do think the question was reasonable given what you do for a living. It sounds like you are involved in paid editing (matching clients with editors would be involved IMO) and you should probably mention that when discussing related editing issues per WP:COI. Hobit (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, thanks. I don't need to endure more assumptions of bad faith. Where do we draw the line? May I ask, who are you and what do you do in real life? It can be fun to ask the questions, but not always so much to be on the receiving end of an inquisition. This is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Let's keep it loose and not subject people to inquests. Just look at the edits. The editors are all mysteries. Jehochman ^Talk 04:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a known COI here. Per WP:COI you should be declaring it. I can bring it to COIN if you like and see what others think. But I'm very concerned that an admin who is strongly advocating for a paid editor is not declaring the conflict of interest. I think the conflict is obvious, but perhaps others will disagree. As far as who I am, my edits have not even come close to violating COI. They may well in the future (the idea of editing for my place-of-work has been brought up) but should that happen, I'll declare my COI. Hobit (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed you asked a question, and got an extremely rude and idiotic response. You were absolutely right to ask the question. You may find some answers to your question here.

Regards.24.4.37.209 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the pointer, I'd not been aware this conversation had happened before. Hobit (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. You may want to read this post too. 24.4.37.209 (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your closure you didn't make crystal clear which of the proposals, by name, you closed with. There was no clear policy-based consensus, surely. Lots of !votes were purely "I don't like it." Lots of !votes were based on future bad acts. Lots of !votes ignored that the swarm-edits were now totally dealt with by edit filters. So: Did you mean removing the links there before the recent bot-added links (the "over 10,000 links")? Did you mean all IP-added links? Or just blankly "all links"? --Lexein (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel it's pretty clear. All links are to be removed and the site blacklisted. I'll clarify it though when I get a chance.
• As far as the closure goes, I believe that the consensus was that the ethical issues associated with the addition of those links by unapproved bots using a botnet (or something like it) made using Archive.is links too much of a risk. I honestly believe that the risk is overstated and that if done correctly there is every reason to believe that the community will allow and encourage the use of Archive.is--it seems to be a very valuable resource. But the concerns of the community about the ethics and safety of the site couldn't be ignored or discounted--there is real risk here and the way things were handled (unapproved bots, botnet) are a reasonable basis for worry. As a closer my job is to find consensus, not substitute my own views. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Before I read your above comment, I asked for a single-admin review of the closure here which got moved to here: Wikipedia:AN#WP:Archive.is RFC request for admin review of closure to address things which really should be addressed in contentious closures.

Anyways, it doesn't seem logical, where there's a lot of support that's not policy based, just "I don't like it", "I don't hear you", "I fear the future"(crystal), "I fear ads"(none), "I fear SEO"(none), and ignoring that Archive.is was in use in good faith and good standing for 9 months before the swarm edits, and ignoring that edit filters already now block all IP edits adding links to Archive.is, that all that poorly-founded support should blankly be considered "consensus".

I don't think I and other registered editors in good standing should be forbidden from linking to Archive.is, when it has the only extant copy of a deadlink RS. --Lexein (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relevant policy here. A lot of reasonable people had reasonable concerns and felt it would be best to remove the links and blacklist the site. The risk to Wikipedia is non-trivial. That said, I welcome any review of my close. Hobit (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a clarifying statement. Please let me know if anything remains unclear. Hobit (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the additions and discussing, but I wasn't asking for more words, I was asking for clearer, more analytical ones. It was not my intention to split discussion - sorry - now that you're discussing at Wikipedia:AN#WP:Archive.is RFC request for admin review of closure, let's just stay there there, because the list of points I'd like considered is there. (I've shrunk this comment as there was no reply yet). --Lexein (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 1#Futz!. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 11#Futz!. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Hello, I just located Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC. I have a question on the use of the site.

I understand from the closing statement that the consensus is to remove all links to archive.is - can you clarify; is that consensus on all bot-added links, or does it also apply to links added to an article by talk-page consensus? Even when blacklisted, some specific targeted pages from a site can be permitted via the white-listing process to still be permitted if consensus exists for the specific targeted link - so I wanted clarification on if the closure permits talk-page consensus to allow links, or if the closure should be interpreted as a full ban on use of the site.

We have a discussion started at Talk:Theresa Obermeyer#External links section; where the official site is gone, and there is no copy at archive.org (although one existed at one time). That leaves archive.is as the last source I can locate of an archived version of the site. This is why I wanted clarification on if the closure should be interpreted similar to a blacklisting (allowing targeted white-listing if consensus exists) or if it should be interpreted as a full ban on usage of the site. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

copy of my reply at Talk:Theresa Obermeyer#External links section kept here in case others have a similar question.

The RfC concluded that we were to remove existing links no matter if added by bot or by hand and blacklist the site. Whatever mechanisms exist to get exceptions to the blacklist should also apply here. Though I would worry that whatever bot removes all the links might catch your whitelisted link also. So it might be a bit of chore. That said, I've no idea if the folks that maintain the blacklist and handle exceptions would be willing to have one here. I'm just saying the RfC doesn't prevent them from granting one. Please let me know if this is unclear in any way. Hobit (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that's clear enough for me.

On a secondary issue, I've worked quite a bit in the past with both the spam blacklist and white-list ... thus far, I haven't seen archive.is listed as a "proposed addition" at WP:SBL. Was the addition due to the RFC closure being handled outside the normal addition process? I can add it to the blacklist; but I want to ensure that I'm not bypassing other steps already being taken. For example, to avoid unintended problems for other users, it's not uncommon to remove the links prior to blacklisting the URL ... who is managing the bots intended to remove the links? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No clues on any of the above I'm afraid. I made the rather foolish assumption that someone who cared would be on it, but I guess as closer that someone might be me. Kww do you have any thoughts on the above? I'm not an admin, so I can't add it to the blacklist. In anycase it shouldn't added until a bot runs. Hobit (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on a formal bot request. It's a tricky problem to do reliably without causing more damage, because the bot has to be able to detect when there is a valid replacement archive and when there is still a viable original.—Kww(talk) 01:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may help that many (all?) archive.is additions using archiveurl= also used deadurl=no or =yes as appropriate. And I would hope, as apparently the sole archivist around here, that since there was only weak blacklisting consensus (the closer's words, not mine), that deadlink web-only (no paper version) resources for which archive.is is the only archive source will be retained unaltered. --Lexein (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Barek: I've made a request at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#archive.is, but I notice that there are over 27,000 links to the site, whereas the text of the RFC correctly but misleadingly said there were "over 10,000". —rybec 03:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with the black listing of archive.is? I added source material to Poramadulla Central College linking directly to the article and an editor subsequently added archive.is links a secondary external link in the reference.[8]

Last I checked the blacklisting was on hold until the bot stuff happened and Kww was going to handle the bot stuff. Hobit (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting to unblock me. I'll avoid editing Latin American topics to avoid any further drama at AN. MarshalN20 | Talk 14:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am contacting you because you are one of the editors/admins who is still active now, and was aware of the notoriously disruptive editor User:Betacommand, a.k.a User:Δ (Delta). As you probably know, he was eventually banned after a third arbitration case, due to the way he conducted himself in the pursuit of his main interest on Wikipedia, WP:NFCC enforcement.

What you may not know, is that he has evidently returned and has been editing as User:Werieth since 2012, in violation of that ban. After just a year, Werieth is already causing the same sort of disruption that Betacommand did - you may experience some deja vu by reading reports made about Werieth such as the one at the top of this AN archive. There are already several others. A quick perusal of Werieth's contributions will also reveal the same Betacommand-like self-assured approach, grounded in the belief that their edits are always "100% correct and 100% according to policy" (when the reality was that he made basic errors and pushed policy boundaries at a rate that, while acceptable in ordinary users for a time limited period, was found to be unacceptable in an editor with the edit rate and communication issues Betacommand had, especially given their inability to change)

I and others have already tried to expose his return via these sock puppet investigations, although as you can see, it's not getting far. That's not for the lack of an answerable case though - you can see the latest summary in this post. Most of the obstruction can be put down to the usual dysfunctional and counter-productive aspects of Wikipedia governance, which of course will always aid experienced WP:GAMErs like Betacommand.

But you may or may not be surprised to learn that the people obstructing this investigation the hardest are three admins whose own conflict of interest with regard to Betacommand/NFCC is best demonstrated in their own words - Black Kite (repeatedly deflects attention away from Werieth and onto accusers), Kww (blocks accusers, and has already unblocked Werieth once) and Future Perfect at Sunrise (has basically declared all out war on anyone who even whispers that Werieth might be Betacommand).

The purpose of this post is to raise awareness about his return, and hopefully persuade one or more of you to resubmit that SPI with the evidence I'm sure you will be able to compile using your own knowledge of Betacommand's characteristic traits. At the very least to prompt you to put his talk page on your watch lists and regularly review his contributions (although obviously, don't waste your time trying to deal with any issues you see on the flawed basis that he is just any old user).

Also obviously, you should also raise a red flag every time you see one of those three admins trying to further suppress the inevitable exposure of his ban evasion. If his return is to be covered up for an unnecessarily long time, it should at least be done simply through general incompetence, rather than obvious COI based abuse of the tools/trusted position of admin. A few emails to the arbcom members who dealt with Betacommand also probably wouldn't go amiss - if ordinary admins aren't bothered about this particular user's return (and you will remember, blinded by their enthusiasm for having someone, anyone, perform NFCC enforcement edits, a great many of them were unwilling to even admit his particular approach to that necessary work was a problem),

Betacommand's clandestine return to Wikipedia is bad enough as it is given that he has simply resumed where he left off in the NFCC enforcement field, with several users already having wasted a lot of time having to deal with him as if he were a legitimate user. But obviously the nightmare scenario if the cover-up is allowed to continue for another year, is if Werieth/Betacommand decides script assisted batch editing is not fast enough for his liking, and decides to take an altogether faster approach - possibly even trying to beat his "record". HTI 483 (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:Flaming/MC2008)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :)

First of all, I wrote the Clark A. Peterson article before I ever realized he was a judge.

Then just today, I realized that Rob Bell (Virginia politician) was the same Rob Bell who worked for Iron Crown Enterprises.

John Nephew of Atlas Games was also a city councilman in Minnesota - turning the redirect into an article is on my to-do list. BOZ (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Most cool and good job! I've a good friend who spent many hours in ICE's "house" playing games and I've been there myself once, so ICE has always been close to my heart. Oh, and I played a Rolemaster for about a year. Sorry for the delay in responding...Hobit (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading [Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Does_the_statement_.22A_page_with_this_title_has_previously_been_deleted.22_create_a_BLP_problem.3F|this BLPN]] post today, I was curious to see where some of the project's more infamous BLP battlegrounds wound up. While not terribly high on the hits list, User:Hobit/Debrahlee Lorenzana does pop up after a few pages, where the old bio page is just a click away. Would you be willing to G7 this? 3.5 years is probably enough time for a BLP draft to stick around. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah. I've looked at it twice in the last 3 months, but never did anything with it. I'll G7 it for now and if I get back to it I'll request the undelete. Thanks Tarc. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, sorry I didn't respond sooner, I missed your note somehow. Hobit (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The problem at List Of.... is that there is no community-consensed FAQ that addresses the perennial complaints at AFD. If you really want me to run down the 7 issue list in another tag, that's fine by me. As for whether they are problems or not, I direct you to AFD #6's admin closing statement. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While I don't think there are significant problems here, the reason I removed the tag was that you had a red link under the list of problems. That tag gives a bunch of options about what you can link to, and some of them are fine for lists or other things (NPOV for example). So if you want to reformat that tag, I'll not remove it (though I think its not needed and a borderline WP:BATTLEGROUND violation given the AfDs etc.) But you need to format it to make it clear what you are getting at if you are going to have it there. Hobit (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed lazy when I did it, instead of itemizing the various points. It's not battleground at all. I voted KEEP in the 4th 5th and 6th AFDs and the closing admin instructed us to try to work through the assertions of BLP/Notability/OriginalResearch that arise on a regular basis. Since admins regularly conclude neither side has made a compelling case, these various arguments are by definition contentious, no matter how strongly you individually feel or I individually feel. The real question is how do we bring order to chaos to try to find out how the overall community feels. Sorry if that looks Battlegroundish to you, but I'm working my butt off for a resolution within the guidelines for contentious issues. Or at least, I'm working my butt of trying to. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

Understood. I don't see the point of tagging it, but... Hobit (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I go about starting a discussion to oppose the blacklisting of archive.is? That discussion was not advertised well at all, I've been adding archive.is links for months and without having done anything wrong every link I've added in all that time is about to become a victim of link rot, this is absolutely unacceptable. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobit, I've started another RFC at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2 and I could use your help if willing as some users have padded unexplained edits saying it is non neutral, but I feel I've covered the consensus points from the summary and explained why I feel it should be unlisted from the blacklist. Can you give me some advice? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm working late tonight (midnight?) and have a ton to do tomorrow. That said, I should be able to find the time to take a look in the next 24 hours. Hobit (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you said "Cool", that made me smile. I am the least cool person you could possibly imagine. I am just a bore, really, (you could think of me as E. L. Wisty) but I hope I add some of that kinda boring knowledge to Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I neither misunderstand nor misrepresent WP:BURDEN, and WP:BRD does not apply when the reversion contradicts policy. WP:RS says that an inline citation is required when the material has been challenged. TRPoD has clearly challenged the material's veracity and has clearly cited WP:BURDEN. That means that both of your reversions are in violation of WP:RS.—Kww(talk) 04:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please address my arguments rather than simply saying "I'm right"? Discussion is more than shouting. Also, did you actually _read_ what you deleted? Do you realize you deleted sourced material (and the cite)? Could you justify that before we address the other issues? Nothing your have said justified doing that. Hobit (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The sole inline citation deleted was to a YouTube video, not normally considered a WP:RS. The remaining paragraphs had no inline citations. The policy about restoration does not permit any alternative sourcing styles: not through blue-links, not through general sources at the bottom, only by specific inline citations.—Kww(talk) 05:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Youtube videos from confirmed sources (as is the case here) are considered reliable. I assume you don't find this one reliable. Could you explain why? (I agree it isn't independent, but that's not the issue here...) Hobit (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Show me the confirmation, and you would be justified in restoring the material, and only the material, supported by that citation, i.e. a description of LAURON IVc. Note that the link on the YouTube video for more information doesn't work.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Kww--we can bump heads all day. But it looks like you just blindly reverted me without checking out the source you removed. While we disagree on WP:BURDEN (and I'm happy to discuss that) could you please restore the sourced material you removed or explain why it should be removed rather than claiming it's my job to fix up your removal of sourced material? Hobit (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Where did you demonstrate that the channel was confirmed to be a channel of a reliable source?—Kww(talk) 05:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Damn it Kevin. Look at the source. It's one click away. You removed what is obviously a reliable source--you have been here long enough it should only take you seconds to confirm this. It isn't my job to correct your errors. It shouldn't be my job to point them out. If you've looked and really can't figure it out in less than 30 seconds, I'll be happy to show you. But put in the 30 seconds of effort first. Hobit (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue here is between an article with RS listed as ELs, and an ideal article with these inlined. Instead of converting these ELs to inline cites, Red Pen took it upon himself to delete half the article. He also cited spurious reasons that these sources were "unreliable" or "commercial". In what sense is that a good, forward moving or in any way appropriate edit?

Once again, Red Pen demonstrates that he has zero interest in the progression of an encyclopedia, he merely likes chances to get to delete stuff, and the more the better. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobit,

Thank you for your comments on ANI. I appreciate your efforts to come to a resolution on List of countries of where Arabic is an official language. I am wondering though if the recent action on that page was that which was agreed upon. At the close of the ANI post, the admin writes: "Alternative offered and agreed upon to be picked up at the talk page." This action (whether to merge two sections) was never a topic of discussion of the RfC; no editor brought it up, discussed it, or weighed the pros and cons. For that reason I kindly ask for a clarification, because it seems that the RfC did not involve that proposal and because the ANI suggests that such a proposal merits further discussion on the talk page there. Thanks again. --Precision123 (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it was a bit on the bold side. If you wish to revert it, that wouldn't be edit warring or anything. Would you mind explaining your issue with the change? I just don't see why breaking this into two lists is helpful. Hobit (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. My issue with the process was one issue (the RfC close was handled professionally despite the odd rant by one editor who reported him to ANI). As to the merits, that section had a purpose for the article. Because the title of the article is "List of countries where...," the section provided room for territories that may or may not actually be countries to be included within the article. It is for the same reason that sections are made for such non-sovereign territories in List of countries where English is an official language, List of countries where French is an official language, List of countries where Russian is an official language, List of countries where German is an official language, etc. In effect, without a special section, a place, group, or dependent territory without recognition as a country might be included in the list of countries. A special section for those places, as exists in other articles, easily solves the problem.

I generally avoid reverting, but because an RfC was just recently discussed and concluded, I think it appropriate to revert to the found consensus. I would support that if you wish to do so. In any case, thank you for your effort and explanation. Have a good weekend. --Precision123 (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at the RFC for Archive.is, I read the consensus really differently than you did - but let me explain. The RFC was not neutral from its creation, the concept of "illegal activity" and malware were unsupported and dramatic, almost every aspect of the arguments were presented non-neutrally. Its fair to say that it wasn't even represented neutrally. Sorry for the length, but first I will go through all the claims and non-neutral aspects of the past RFC to highlight how the "deck was stacked" against Archive.is instead of the Rotlink user.

The entire RFC introduction to the conclusion was completely non-neutral and designed to establish a clear preference and remove the more logical options. Rotlink was the problem, not the hundreds of editors who added Archive.is links. The RFC came to the conclusion to purge Archive.is as a whole, instead of Rotlink's contributions. Even the notion that a Rotlink filter or block could and would be done was not presented. The issue has been resolved for many months and the blacklist - which had almost no consensus was created, but the removal of all the Archive.is links were not. In fact, the Rotlink additions should have been gone and only those.

Two users appealed that they would suffer because of Rotlink - not once did their arguments get any representation in the RFC. Some 15 people opted for "removal" action, but to what ends? Most on fear of malware and illicit activity and that Rotlink was Archive.is - a claim that is not supported and by an editor who deviated from all norms and processes to further the blocking and action against Archive.is whilst making errors in their system and server sizes. False flag, perhaps, or just someone who acts irrationally and doesn't care about either Wikipedia or Archive.is's reputation? Either way, the issue has passed and the Archive.is filter was later removed and reinstated by Kww in wheel warring, and did not work completely - it is trivial to bypass to this date. When I noted that the site was at Archive.today (due to a top-level domain issue) it was Kww who proclaimed that they did it to bypass the blacklist. On all accounts, Kww did this during the Admin noticeboard discussion and plopped it on the Bot Approvals notice. Even his BAG was not accurate and added details on May 16 to the mounting opposition - something which should have been present from the get go. Kww may mean well, but he's hardly a neutral party and the claims made have been done with the intention of garnering as much support regardless of the facts of the case.

Its clear that a new and neutral RFC needs to be done - I'd like someone experienced and independent to make it. There should be no discussion of malware and illicit activity and it should focus on the fact numerous editors use Archive.is and it has thousands of GameSpot links which are not held by Archive.org or Webcite due to issues. Robots.txt is not applicable to manual snapshots either, but that's more "debatable". Sorry for the extremely long post, but this was just the beginning of how the past RFC had numerous red flags that should be avoided next time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Archive.is isn't actually on a blacklist - it'd break all the pages. Kww made an edit filter which is a different process. Its actually causing numerous issues with people even trying to revert vandalism.[9] Kww lead against Archive.is, created the RFC, made the edit filter and reinstated it after its removal... I'm concerned about all this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I think I understand your point-of-view better now, though I don't know that I agree with the RfC being biased. I think the numeric consensus and general sense of the RfC left little doubt about how to handle these links and I think I'd close it the same way again (though with some clarifications in hindsight). All that said, if you put together an RfC, I'll be happy to help edit it and get it to be neutral. I'd rather not start it, as I really don't have a horse in this race (other than my responsibility as closer) and it's a bad idea for anyone to start an RfC on something if they don't actually care about the coutcome. That said, I'd like us to do the right thing, whatever that may be. As far as Kww goes, I have long viewed him as someone who sees things starkly--in black and white if you will. Just recognize that he (like you IMO) can be a pain in the rear, but has the interests of the Encyclopedia in mind. So try not to personalize the issue, it won't help. As you can see above and in my edit history, he and I have bumped heads a lot, so I speak from experience. Let me know what you want to do. Hobit (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, to clarify, I'd base the RfC on WP:CCC and the fact that no problems with archive.is have sprung up in the last few months rather than arguing that the RfC was non-neutral. It will just be more likely to get a fair hearing, and frankly is the stronger argument. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A numeric consensus goes against the whole !vote matter according to policy, hence my concern with it. To discount or outright ignore the whole body of contributing editors and condemn the whole because of a single editor is more than a "black and white" definition in my eyes. Kww said the initial post was neutral, but the arguments were not - though I disagree because of the above, but you are correct about the premise. I know Kww is trying to do good for Wikipedia - its just the continued action is not helping. I've made numerous requests to see the activity regarding that edit filter (its private and not even admins can see it) and it most certainly has no active need - even the Archive.is owner denies being Rotlink. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I think the next step is to just start a new RfC. Not much else is going to settle this. As I mentioned, if you start working on it, I'll help edit it and get it ready to go. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer a few questions above, there are 4559 hits on filter 559 to date. The reason I referred to myself in the third person in the RFC is not to pretend that I'm not me, but to make it clear when the reason something had happened was because I had formed a conclusion and other people had listened. There's a big difference between "the IP's were being used illegally, leading to their edits being rolled back" and "Kww came to the conclusion that the IPs were being used illegally and called for them to be rolled back". The first states my conclusion as fact, the second states the actual fact: that me coming to a conclusion led to activity.—Kww(talk) 04:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in arguing the past... it'll just make colloboration tougher at this point. So let's try another method, I'd like a temporary lifting of the edit filter and to see what transpires. @Kww: would you be willing to attempt this? And Hobit, not to carry this on your page without your involvement, but surely there would be no objection to a smaller gentleman's agreement to move forward here. The last thing I want to do is make a huge scene that'll get negative attention poised to capitalize on the effort and for there to be a "winning or losing" side. There is no winning or losing in this matter - framing it as such is invalid - but I much rather have a skilled editor like Kww who can see and monitor this also be willing to entertain such a trial and see what happens. I'd say let the filter remain to track the additions and respond as necessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I firmly believe that the owner of archive.is an untrustworthy individual and that every link to archive.is presents an unnecessary risk to users and editors.—Kww(talk) 05:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: That would be Denis Petrov? I find it interesting that the "donate" link at the upper right of the archive.today homepage takes me here, and that the blocked bot added a link to web.archive.org. I also found this discussion, which left me with a positive impression of Denis, quite informative. I see no reason to suspect nefarious motives, however I lack the technical knowledge and admin/checkuser privileges which are perhaps needed for a complete and fair analysis. Regarding "I had a hard time making sense of that discussion. Did you see anything there which you interpreted as either an explicit confirmation or denial of being responsible for the bot edits?—Kww(talk) 06:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)" I think I understood the discussion, and the point is that who is responsible for the "bot edits" is irrelevant. If Denis is responsible and admits it, then Wikipedia blacklists the site because of his bad-faith edits. If he says that he is not responsible, either Wikipedia calls him a liar and blacklists the site because he is untrustworthy, or believes him and still blocks the site because he can't control the "bots" making bad-faith additions of links to his site. By the same logic we should ban all free archive sites because, by definition, none of them can ever guarantee themselves beyond any reasonable doubt to be trustworthy. I think I basically agree with Denis' comment "I think, if the Wikipedia government are so concerned even about illegality of proxy lists, they should remove all the free archives, buy pagefreezer.com's subscription and use it instead." Surely the WMF has the money to do this; I'm puzzled why a "pagefreeze" of any linked citation isn't made simultaneously and automatically with the saving of the citation-link itself. Any link can potentially be maliciously changed the minute after an editor saves it, in a manner that could reflect negatively on that editor. An emergency "pagefreeze" restoration might be needed to restore that editor's reputation. "Pagefreeze" copies would initially only be viewable by administrators, which would protect Wikipedia from BLP issues, etc. and only be restored by edit-request and admin review after the actual content link went dead or was (possibly maliciously) changed, if such restoration did not violate anyone's "right to be forgotten". Wbm1058 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisGualtieri: Are you still planning on starting a new RfC? If so, then please don't delay, as that would be the only good reason, in my view, to delay implementation of Kww's bot. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for comment on Bioregulatory medicine and I respect your view though disagree, but I would like to ask you honest question: Did you actually read article? And since it was deleted where did you access disputed text? thank youBogorodica (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been restored so people can read it during the DRV. Look at the article and it's history. And I won't claim I read every word, but yes, I read it (looked at a few versions in fact). Hobit (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is fine I appreciate honest reply, regardless for outcome. Thanks for comment and particularly for reading article. By the way, may I ask for opinion, as I am really a new on Wiki and do not know how it works; do you think it is worth to keep working on the topic in background and gather scientific momentum (which is coming daily in on the topic) and resubmit when it reaches reasonable notability, or do you feel it would not be good idea and not worth effort?

Sorry to bother you, as I would not want to waste your time guys since you are doing great work..am big fun of the whole Wiki concept, so would not wish to jeopardise it Bogorodica (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think something in a more main-stream source would make this an open-and-shut case. A mainstream medical article (even negative) or significant coverage in the popular press. Hobit (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Understand the point, so will look for these notations and some I have already have compiled, but am grateful for your comments. many tyhanks Bogorodica (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and reasons for being in the Wikipedia:

• Dominion 2009 Game Of The Year Germany, acts as an example to emulate
• Irene D. Long first female Chief Medical Officer at the Kennedy Space Center, one of the few female high-ranking individual in NASA
• Ong Kean Swan multilevel marketing "king" of Malaysia
• Blas de Lezo beat the British at their own game
• Sonneratia plant genus (plants and animals at the genus level and above are what encyclopedias traditionally cover, they form the web of life and through taxonomy provide context for each other)
• Innsbruck places above the level of neighbourhood, street or building serve the function of a gazetteer, WP:5P, places are geographically related and each article demonstrates that
• Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad sultan of the Ghurid Empire, like all historical figures we have the web of history that links them
• Augustin Gattinger no article yet, widely cited German-American botanist, first cataloged Tennessee flora
• LiteSpeed Technologies Inc. is kind of weak, as you may see from my comments on the talkpage, but they do have the 4th most popular web server
• Guiana Shield one of the three cratons of the South American Plate, which helps understand Earth's development
• Mohorovičić discontinuity key concept in understanding the mantle-crust relation

Does that give you somewhat of an idea as to reasons for having an article in the Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not a directory or random data. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context. If an article has no reason there is no context. --Bejnar (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • What is the bar you'd have? Context? We can do that as soon as we find someone who can read the sources. I understand your point--you want each article to *matter* and you want to be able to identify how it matters (or at least that's what I think you are saying). That's a very high bar--especially for an article whose sources are in languages (I assume) you can't read. Further, in my opinion, that's the wrong bar. I'd argue we'd delete nearly every football player and actor/actress here if we were to use that bar. Not to mention 95% of all singles. But "interesting" to a fair subset of our readers is also important--and thus we have those (rather popular) articles. But I'll ask again--how does deleting this help the encyclopedia? Our guidelines say to keep it. WP:IAR can be a fine reason to delete it, but you need to show why it helps to do so. I don't think you've expressed an answer to that yet. What active problem are we solving by deletion? If it needed meet WP:N an issue of verifability would be at stake. If it were a low-notability person, the risk of WP:BLP problems might be significant enough to merit deletion. But I just don't see the issue here. Hobit (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say Our guidelines say to keep it. But I say that is not so. It may meet the threshold for being kept WP:GNG, but that is not the same as saying keep it. In fact I would say that you are correct that WP:IAR is the exact reason not to keep. I can stumble through Dutch and German, and the three real reviews (as opposed to rules reviews, reprint blurbs or blogs) that I read did not really connect this game to the board game universe. One said it demonstrated no new game ideas, but did not indicate what ideas it did demonstrate. --Bejnar (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, probably this isn't going to go anywhere--you see no value here and I see value and I don't see that changing. I also think we should cover things that meet WP:N unless there is a good reason not to. I suspect if you hit random 10 times, some 3+ articles would be below the bar you've set. But ignoring all that, why does deletion help here? I just don't see the case. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

You seem to have some skill at coming up with sources. Do you have anything you could add to improve Cerebro? BOZ (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing great, but [10], [11] [12] (really brief), [13], [14] (pretty good). Sorry, that's all I could hunt down... Hobit (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the productive discussion on PC2, and best of luck for the next round. - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks, real life has been busy (fun, but busy). I'll be back here on Monday. Hobit (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]