User talk:Colonel Warden

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick

Thought you might like to see that I changed my vote on this one: [1] You were right, my reasoning made no sense. Thanks for pointing it out. Robofish (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well said. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

I know we've been bumping heads lately, but I have a question. Rather than going to one of the noticeboards, I thought I'd try to get you to clear things up. Aircraft design process is nominated for deletion. You moved that article to Aircraft design during the deletion discussion. You then started a new article at Aircraft design process. Which article is being debated at the AfD? Is it Aircraft design where the tag currently is or is it Aircraft design process which is the name of the original article? This is quite confusing. AniMate 06:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Both titles are under discussion there and the history of the matter is explained though, if you're coming to it late, the discussion may seem too long, alas. It is not unusual for multiple article titles to be bundled together. I'll check the links and presentation to see if this can be made clearer. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Colonel, you and I have disagreed plenty in AfD discussions, and if I dig deeply enough I can find an AfD where, if I am not mistaken, you moved or renamed an article (some theological thing) under discussion (but not with the results of the Aircraft affair, fortunately). I didn't see the ANI discussion until just now, but I wanted to tell you that I think this was a good answer. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• That earlier case was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemics of Divine Reality (2nd nomination). That move was reverted by DGG and the blue link I had created, which was certainly a notable topic, was deleted. That reversion and deletion was disruptive in the proper sense of the wiki-concept: "disrupting progress toward improving an article". The precedents are now clear and I may return to the matter but not right now as I have a dinner engagement... Colonel Warden (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• I hope you enjoy. Regards, Drmies (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hanwell Park

CW, After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grove Avenue, London was closed, I moved the article to Hanwell Park. It could do with some of your attention from the sources you say you have, if you'd be so kind? Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I observed your edits following the AFD. I applaud your initiative but thought it best to leave you to it as I had had a good run at the topic. If you have now run dry then we can perhaps wait upon another editor to take it forward. Myself, I have been working on adjacent articles which have been suggested by consideration of the same sources, such as Cuckoo Schools. There is much to be said about the area and I find it best to let the work develop slowly and steadily as one reads around the topic(s). If one tries to force the pace, then one may overreach. See WP:DEADLINE. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have / can't find the sources to define what Hanwell Park actually was/is, whilst you mentioned you had the London Encyclopedia or somesuch tome, which would probably help with this matter. I get a bit antsy when I leave an article which, even if short, doesn't do a decent job of at least defining its content, which I feel is the case here. But no worries, if you have other things to be getting on with I shall leave you to your cuckoos, aircraft and whatever other oddments you have come across! Bigger digger (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, it seems I am under attack by the Admin force of Wikipedia, well actually just a few of them. I am obviously stupid because I am not an admin. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Glossary of jive talk

Please be aware that footnotes are expected. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• That is a low priority - work for gnomes. It is more important to settle the fact of the article's existence, its title and scope. Several of my followers are now in attendance and I have flagged it for a couple of projects. Many hands make light work...

Colonel Warden (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Keith Coster

Colonel Warden, I've been working through unreferenced BLPs, and ran across the article on Keith Coster. Do you think being a recipient of the OBE makes him notable? I know little about it. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Being commander of a national army seems to be an even bigger deal. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, much appreciated, --Nuujinn (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Illegal immigration in India

I have somewhat enhanced the article Illegal immigration in India. Please review and comment on the talk page if the NPOV banner can be removed.

Thanks --Iball (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Remind me, please, as I have no recollection of this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Explain yourself.

Please give me a good, reasonable explanation why this was a remotely good idea, in light of everything else that has happened over the last week or two. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You have now been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. I expect that my post at WP:ANI#Colonel Warden blocked should give you insight into both my reasoning and the community's reactions. I'm truly sorry it's come to this. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing. While I've already noted the block in text on this page, it occurred to me that the boilerplate text on unblock requests might be useful. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Your reaction seems puzzling. The article was tagged for reference improvement. In the edit in question, I added a couple of citations to encyclopedic sources and, in the past, would have regarded this as sufficient reason to remove the cleanup tags. In the light of recent warnings, it seemed more prudent to retain the tags so that the corresponding categories remained. But the top of the article was getting cluttered with too many large banner tags so I moved the ones which had been addressed to some extent down to the foot of the article, placing them in the References section, which seemed an appropriate place for them. This does not seem disruptive as I was improving the article in good faith.

Note also that I have placed numerous citations of other good and relevant sources in the corresponding AFD discussion. Today, I was browsing for some more sources and found some more good ones such as this article in The Times. I have not yet found time to do some major editing of the article but was preparing the ground as I seem to be the only editor who is exerting himself in support of this notable topic. But, as I have already found and cited 7 sources on top of the 35 citations which the article already contained, why is this not sufficient? Just how many sources have to be added before you will permit a tag to be touched?

Colonel Warden (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case, the problem was not with the quantity of the sources, but with their quality. Almost all of the citations are from non-reliable sources, like websites that are promoting their own products and agenda (i.e. residentialsolarpanels.org, greenfloors.com, greenconcepts.com, greenrestaurants.org, indigogreenstore.com, mrtakeoutbags.com, etc). There are a few sources that are reliable, but the majority of the text in the article is supported by unreliable sources. This should be obvious to anyone who is as experienced as you are on Wikipedia. The fact that it is not obvious to you is likely the cause of the problem which the proposed topic ban would resolve. SnottyWong ^comment 01:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• The 8 sources which I have identified so far all seem quite satisfactory. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand the purpose of cleanup tags. The majority of the material that is currently in the article is based on unreliable sources. This is what the {{refimprove}} cleanup tag is intended to point out. The fact that you pointed out valid sources in a deletion discussion doesn't change the fact that the article needs cleanup. You only added two sources to the actual article, and the only content they purport to verify is the lead. Do you truly believe that the sourcing in the article, as it currently stands, does not require a very major cleanup? SnottyWong ^converse 03:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Do you understand that WP:TC specifies that tags are to be placed at the top of an article? Is there some mystery consensus for article-wide tags to be placed on the bottom of an article which I'm otherwise unaware?

No, I have never heard of WP:TC. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to refresh your memory: you commented on the talk page in 2008. Hmm. The version of that page at the time you wrote your comment on the corresponding talk page specified that tags go at the top of the page. Has your opinion of cleanup templates changed since you wrote that edit? Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't recall the details of that occasion. The shortcut WP:TC is not familiar to me nor are all its details. I suppose I was responding to some centralised discussion on a particular point, as I sometimes do. The most recent discussion on this general issue that I attended was at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Maintenance tags. There seemed to be a developing consensus there that maintenance tags should be less intrusive and I endorsed JzG's proposal which seemed quite sensible. I've seen other discussions like that at Village Pump but find them quite hard to find again once they are buried in the archives. My general impression is that there is a fair amount of dissatisfaction with large banner tags, such as can be seen at that discussion. And now I must really go to bed before the orange light flickers again. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ignorance is no excuse. If you're not aware of the relevant guidelines and consensus regarding cleanup tags, then why would you delete/move them? I find it hard to AGF that an editor with 20,463 edits has never heard of WP:TC (despite having had a discussion on its talk page in the past), especially considering that you are particularly well-versed in almost every other policy/guideline/essay that exists. SnottyWong ^confer 03:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

a random 2 cents, i've never heard of WP:TC, though there's lot of things i never look up. i do see articles in my sourcing work sometimes which have tags below the top of the article (usually down in the poor/empty reference section) and never move them up to the top.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• What, if anything, would you like copied into the ANI thread as your response? Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• You seem to be my antagonist rather than my interlocutor. It is therefore not proper that you represent me. It is, in any case, simpler if I speak for myself. Interested parties can read my comments here, I suppose.
• I'm going to bed now. Good night. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to post anything you wish into the AN/I thread. I'll also unblock you, if the community is willing to allow it. Response seems divided at the moment, but perhaps a good word from you will sway them towards the positive end of things? I'll refrain from posting in the thread in the meantime. BOZ (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your interest. Here's a point which has not yet been made. The last incident at ANI was about a move/split of an article. In this new case of Green restaurants, I suggested in the discussion that the article be moved and invited comment. My words were:

"The article title would be better as Green restaurant per WP:SINGULAR. Any objections if I move it, as part of the process of clean up and improvement?"

This demonstrates that I sought consensus over this minor matter of an editing move in order to be compliant with the discontent expressed in the previous discussion. This matter of relocating tags within the article seems to be a new issue. If editors are going to make a federal case out of it then I shall likewise observe restraint and seek consensus for such action. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This has already been brought up at the ANI thread. The ANI thread is about your behavior with respect to cleanup tags, not with moving articles during AfD. SnottyWong ^babble 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• A further point which seems relevant is that the page WP:TC, which seems to be the basis for this action, is not stated to be policy or even a guideline. It therefore has no particular standing which should cause editors to treat it as law. The page was not mentioned in the previous ANI discussion nor do I recall anyone ever making a big deal about this before. I cannot be expected to anticipate new concerns of this kind when they come out of the blue like this and there is no reasonable warning. My editing actions are often intended to make substantial improvements to articles in the spirit of WP:BOLD and WP:HEY. WP:BOLD is an official guideline and I had supposed it to be well established. The improvement templates, which WP:TC discusses, are invitations to be bold and WP:TC states, "editors should work to fix the problem as quickly and cleanly as possible so the template message can be removed". Removal of the templates is therefore expected in such cases and it does not seem reasonable to complain when articles are improved and the templates are adjusted as a consequence. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you need a guideline, try Wikipedia:Manual of Style (article message boxes), which spells it out quite clearly. Surely you've heard of the Manual of Style? And, WP:BOLD has nothing to do with it. Removing or marginalizing cleanup tags is not "improvement". Actually addressing the issues that the cleanup tag is pointing out is improvement. SnottyWong ^babble 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• A further point is about WP:DISRUPTION. This is another official guideline and defines the issue to be "disrupting progress toward improving an article". My actions were, in this case, directly intended to improve the article in question. I added two reasonable citations of Bruce E. Johansen (2009), The Encyclopedia of Global Warming Science and Technology, vol. 1 and Leslie A. Duram (2010), Encyclopedia of Organic, Sustainable, and Local Food. These works seemed to be better sources than what was there before and were a token of the further work to be expected. I went on to list more sources of a scholarly kind in discussion and this demonstrates my good faith in bringing forward reasonable improvements. As these actions were of an improving nature, I fail to see how they can be characterised as disruption. The editors who oppose my actions do not seem to want improvements made. Why is this opposition not characterised as disruption, as it seems to disrupt progress towards improvement of articles? It is hard to understand the reasoning here. Are we expected to sit on our hands when there is work to be done? Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No one is chastising you for adding sources to an article, so there is no need to bring up this red herring. Again, deleting/moving cleanup tags is not improvement. When you perform actions that are in direct conflict with the MOS (after being warned multiple times), then you are being disruptive. SnottyWong ^babble 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• A further point concerns the role of User:Jclemens. He has been soliciting complaints and hosting personal attacks against me on his talk page. For example, see User talk:Jclemens#Alan Cook in which it was suggested that I had engaged in outright fraud in the article Alan Cook. This was an absurd accusation which not true in any way and so the vexatious complaint was withdrawn. User:Jclemens did not reprove the opposing editor for failing to assume good faith, which is again another official guideline. User:Jclemens seems to be over-reacting by enforcing a non-guideline while soliciting and indulging breaches of our official behavioural guidelines. He therefore does not seem impartial and, instead, seems determined to impose one-sided and draconian sanctions which are out of all proportion to the supposed offense. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If anything, Jclemens has given you more chances than he should have. He gave you warning after warning, and all you did was ignore them. And, this isn't about Jclemens. If you've read the ANI thread, then you've seen that there are quite a few more editors that have endorsed the block and agree with his take of the situation. SnottyWong ^babble 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• So, in summary, my behaviour has been intended to be restrained, responsive and directed towards improvement of this and other articles. It seems sad that my good faith should so readily be questioned and that I should be prevented from making further improvements.

Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you want me to add this response to the AN/I thread? If so, I'm assuming you'd want me to take from "Here's a point which..." and on. I want to make sure this is your intention, rather than assuming what you wanted and making an ass out of myself. ;) BOZ (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• No thanks, it is a long statement with multiple paragraphs and seems likely to confuse if it is cut/paste elsewhere by another editor. I suggest that you post your own statement and views of the matter at WP:ANI#Reviews from uninvolved users. If there is any particular detail above which seems important to you then you might quote it with a link to the full statement. BTW, while we talk, is your account name a reference to Boz? I started an article on Dickens' London and you may be interested. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep out of this one for now, although I'll keep an eye on it - seems kind of hostile in there.  ;) "BOZ" is a spelling variant of my real name. :) BOZ (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• That's a shame because we have had little interaction IIRC and so you properly fit the description of an "uninvolved user", as specified for that section. As it is, we have a parade of users there who have scores to settle. You may recall that User:Bali ultimate, for example, has recently been uncivil towards me, as detailed at User talk:Jclemens#Colonel Warden. Again, in this instance, our behavioural guideline was breached, but User:Jclemens chose to do nothing except advise me to "deal with it". Bali ultimate now turns up at ANI to harangue me again. He is clearly involved, would you not say? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There definitely is a loud chorus of "endorse block" from the crowd who are more likely to cry "delete" in an AFD, if that's what you mean, so no surprise there. Even without them, the respondents are pretty well split on what to do about you. I don't see this block sticking for long though, just in my opinion, and I don't think it was intended to be. You've got people yelling about "long-term disruption", however, and claims like that can sway uninvolved users into seeking a long-lasting block of some sort. I think the thing to do is to listen to the complaints, see if that requires any modification to your behavior, and then let the community decide how long the current block should last. If you keep butting heads with some of these people, they will eventually do an RFC/U (maybe much sooner than later), or maybe take you to ArbCom or try to get you banned at AN. I've seen it happen, and I know you've seen it too. Thinking you are right doesn't prevent others from judging you the other way; people like A Nobody, Asgardian, and Gavin.collins thought they were right, and look where they are now. I'd like to see you stick around, personally; we need more people who are willing to put the effort into fixing up borderline articles to counteract those who lazily request deletion rather than fixing the problem, and especially those who want to delete articles for their own personal reasons. BOZ (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

You are being unblocked. Consensus at ANI is that an RFC/U is a better place to work out any particular sanctions. Again, I regret that it came to this, and that I was self-selected to be the bearer of news that your editing has consistently not been in accordance with community expectations. Please participate transparently in the forthcoming RFC/U; I think I shall skip it. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• An RfC/U seems premature. I have responded to the incipient process at Response by Colonel Warden. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Johnson (footballer)

you may note you were the only one to !vote keep. simply trying to argue on policy is going to address notability. LibStar (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Your first sentence is counter-factual as multiple editors voted to keep. I do not understand what the second sentence means. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

how about trying to argue how something is notable instead of recycling your usual policy trumps guidelines and we should not be trying to harm Wikipedia argument. clearly the football player in question did not pass notability. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

sorry 2 others voted keep but dream focus withdraw his keep vote. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Er... Anyone trying to do something constructive here, or are we just pointlessly arguing? LibStar, I'm sure it's thoughtful of you to point out that CW's vote was against the eventual consensus, and some of his arguments might have been weak, but having a go at him for this position won't change it.

CW, I think some of your editing is odd, but I can see you also do a lot of positive work, so am happy to rub alongside you, but don't take the bait in circumstances like this, there must be articles requiring your attention withering while you're reading this..! ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

my point is the constant recycling of the same old policy trumps notability argument. we have established criterion for notability. turning up and voting keep for the sake of it is not constructive. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought the way to address that would be to address his arguments, not berate him for being on the wrong side of consensus. For example, WP:PAPER is not relevant to that keep !vote as it is an argument about space. No-one was arguing that the article should have been deleted as it was taking up too much space, or that the article was too big, which is what WP:PAPER addresses. It explicitly states that this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars. CW's use of it in this argument was therefore a red-herring, and despite pointing it out here, I am sure it has been mentioned before and will probably be used again. Anyway, enough from me. Bigger digger (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• No, it was not a red herring. My position was that there was a constructive alternative to deletion. This was to redirect the article to the list of Aston Villa players. This would have addressed the weak notability of the topic while preserving the edit history which seems likely to be needed in future as this player starts to play for the first team. He is currently the captain of the youth team, has been selected for the first team roster and so his future seems assured and is already documented by national newspapers. The counter-argument was that the list of players has been restricted to those with 100+ appearances. My response was that this was an arbitrary limit and that this is where WP:PAPER comes in - we have no need to limit such a list for reasons of size - we have lists with hundreds of thousands of entries. This logic still seems sound.
• As for our wasting time on this post mortem, you have a point but it applies to you too. My position is somewhat different in that I am currently the subject of numerous personal attacks on account of my editing of articles. This has always been intended to be constructive and to improve the articles but other editors dispute this. They seek to find fault with everything I do, examining every edit in minute detail to see how it may be criticised. It therefore seems safer to occupy myself with non-article work such as discussions about policy. This may indeed be less productive but so it goes...
• Colonel Warden (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, ok, got that a bit skeewhiff, I'll leave you in peace now. I just didn't think the way LibStar brought this to your page was appropriate. And I won't object to you editing Hanwell Park with the sources you have..! Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• I was reading about the Zeigarnik effect recently. This is due to the anxiety which develops when a task is incomplete and so leads to the conclusion that the best way to finish some large task is to start it. It is interesting to observe that this effect seems so strong in you. This effect provides a good scientific basis for our editing policy which encourages us to create and nuture faltering starts. The countervailing sentiment that we should instead delete incomplete work, so that the task seems not to be started, is thus shown to be unscientific and demotivating. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ha, I "suffer" from that, it helps explain why I was good at exams: I never finished my revision! But I don't find that a compelling argument to keep articles that aren't notable, it's just an argument to keep the ropey ones, which I fully agree with. Now stop luring me back here... Bigger digger (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• I find it odd LibStar is criticizing you for voting against consensus in one article, when he has done that many times before, even renominating the same articles again after he failed to get them deleted in his previous attempt. And this seems to be nonconstructive, just a personal attack against an editor he disagrees with. Seen that happen before. Dream Focus 14:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus as someone who votes keep 100% of the time, the fact that even you withdrew your keep vote says something about notability of the subject. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've just taken another look at this and now see the obvious solution for this case - merger into Aston Villa F.C. Reserves and Academy which already lists this person. I know little about this football club but seem to have no difficulty in finding a constructive solution which everyone else seems to have missed. The nominator's motto is So little done, so much to do. How true. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to participate

User:Wuhwuzdat has made a very WP:Pointy deletion nomination of List of management consulting firms after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. Since you participated in the 1st AfD, I am notifying you of the 2nd AfD in the event you wish to participate. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have responded in that discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Cubby-hole

I wonder why... you took it upon yourself to remove references to the situation in Australia and SA in the Wendy house article without removing the redirects or perhaps creating a new article? Silent Billy (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Good point. By coincidence, I was just reading of something similar in The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. I have started a separate article at cubby-hole and arranged for other similar titles such as cubby house to point there. I'm also going to develop playhouse as an umbrella article for these plus treehouses and the like but am currently waiting for the redirect bot to sort out links following the needed move.Colonel Warden (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• you may want to visit cubbyhole. pablo 11:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I noticed that when taking stock but forgot it when chasing down all the different names. I have attended to it now, thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

• This edit is unacceptable - I'm pretty sure that you don't need me to explain why a wikilink comparing other editors to Nazis isn't welcome here. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• The practise of stifling open discussion is common to authoritarian regimes of all sorts. Just the other day, I read an interesting obituary of Emilio Massera who specialised in making political opponents disappear by use of force majeure. The common theme here is that of making things disappear without due process and debate. My comments are of a general nature — indicating that this is bad and that we should proceed otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

en.WP doesn't kidnap human beings and kill them, nor anything even close to that. This website has no police powers at all, only some software tools for controlling access to a database. Analogies such as those you've made are not only mistaken, they're sickening, disruptive and wholly lacking in any shred of WP:AGF. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BK, instead of blocking CW instead of ignoring that comment (or citing Godwin's law and then ignoring it), you could have fixed Abdurrahim Hojibayev, one of the blanking victims this week, instead of redirecting it to an article that did not mention him. Will you self block for that error?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There is one category of people, who could be safely compared to nazi. See here. According to European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights expressed in its working definition for antisemitism "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" is considered to be an antisemitism, but guess what the user who made such a comparison got... (surprise, surprise) only a friendly warning. It is what is sickening, Gwen Gale.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not the same thing as comparing an editor on this website to killers. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe there are no editors on this site, who are Israelis, and who will and do take it personally?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I believe about that. Nor does the fairness or the unfairness of how some other attack may have been handled have sway here. Editors here mustn't compare other editors to killers, even through analogy, it harms the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I know that Colonel Warden and others like myself have been called "ARSholes" and members of the "inclusionist Taliban" for supporting inclusionist viewpoints and no one is ever blocked for that. Calling someone is a nazi is also very poor taste, but treating it like saying "Voldemort" in Harry Potter is too much.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Namecalling of any kind is not on. I'd say anything like that is wholly untowards and should/can be redacted on sight. If it keeps up, the namecalling editor should most likely be blocked. I wouldn't have blocked CW for this, civility blocks don't have overwhelming consensus on en.WP these days unless there have been straightforward slurs, but I wouldn't unblock unless he said he won't make personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone a Nazi is "in very poor taste"? Well there's a contender for understatement of the month. Frankly, if you're actually defending CW saying that (and since on ANI you called the block "stupid" I presume you are), I think you probably need to have a really good think about what you're actually implying here. Meanwhile, the only thing I had to think about was whether the block length was too lenient. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I do stand by what I said, I thought the comment was sickening. Wholly unfit for a volunteer encyclopedia project. It's ok to go back and forth about sources and policies, there is no need to smear volunteer editors, it only does harm and Colonel, it will not get you what you want. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• CW did not call anyone a nazi, he made an analogy to tactics being nazilike. but even so, this is the internet, and people get called nazis every 5 seconds. my opinion is that someone should have asked for the comment to be "refactored" if it was so offensive instead of applying an immediate block, which is typically how I see such stuff treated. The nazi epithet is just as bad as other epithets that get used and not immediately blocked such as "inclusionist taliban".--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was as bad and quite as harmful. Throwing smears because someone else has done won't help. en.WP is not USENET. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've unblocked, that block was wholly without merit and I've told Black Kite exactly that. Fences&Windows 21:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, civility blocks don't have overwhelming consensus on en.WP. CW, please don't comment on other editors, stick to policy and sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I love it when admins unilaterally reverse the actions of others. They are doubly special when the blockee never even made a request to be unblocked, and triply so when it is done not following a discussion with admin #1 but with a crass "Your block of Colonel Warden was ridiculous, I've unblocked him. Find something useful to do with your tools instead of posturing" message. Good show. Tarc (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There were other admins on this page and ANI supporting the basis for the block, so the unblock could not be justified as reversing a rogue block. It is about time that Arbcom took on the issue of unilateral unblocks. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps Fences should have a gander at WP:NPA, both for themselves and on the topic of this block? Perhaps Fences should have looked into consensus first? Or, is it ok to call editors here killers and ridiculous to think otherwise? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not. Taken to WP:ANI. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Jeebus christmas people, go improve some articles please.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I have restored the block. See the WP:ANI discussion. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Continue wasting all our time, nice job, chief.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• The statement "The alternative conception - that we should quietly do away with substantial topics - seems neither proper nor efficient and brings to mind disreputable tactics" is an analogy which relates people to Nazis only in relation to "substantial topics." It is like someone saying to another "you murdered the truth" which is not at all the same as calling any one person a "killer" and should hardly! be a reason to block someone. But I guess if you want to do away with substantial topics and also with substantial editors, to define this analogy as a personal attack is one way to do it. 172.190.87.241 (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:NPA and its ugly sister WP:CIV have long been subverted into becoming convenient tools for the expulsion of editors who have become unpopular in the admin's corridors of power. Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment. You nicely parsed what was actually said at ANI though. Thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • You're welcome. Don't let the block get you down; as a wise editor once said to me, just think of it as a battle scar. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, I'm sure you both will regard it as a WP:BATTLE scar. SnottyWong ^comment 21:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
          • You seem to be the one that's battling Snotty. Why not put down your pitchfork now? Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Making Pumpkin Pie

Colonel Warden. I noticed your comment on the presidential scandals discussion, right below mine. Your reasoning is precise and laudable. Would you mind taking a look at the discussion above that one, the "Making Pumpkin Pie" article, and let me know what you think? I am interested in learning how things are here. Mwywy (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm going to check out your "Article Rescue Squadron" that I saw listed on your profile page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwywy (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'll take a look. Note that article rescue is a more fractious business than you might expect. Take care. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Making Pumpkin Pie lacked a good source. I looked for one and then summarised it in the main article. This is the best way of proceeding - to find and use a good source. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

UK Community Notice - IRC meeting

Dear Wikipedian,

This is the first of what will hopefully be a regular notice to help bring together the UK community so that you can be involved in some amazing things. To kick things off, there will be a UK community IRC meeting at 1800 UTC, December 7, 2010 to discuss the future growth and developement of Wikimedia UK. Without huge community support and involvement, the chapter cannot be successful and to get the most out of it, get involved.

For information on the community IRC meeting please go here

More to come about:

• Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Events
• 1st Annual UK Wiki-conference
• Trustee interest meeting - an event for those community members with even just a fleeting interest in becoming trustees of Wikimedia UK.

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 05:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Many thanks for your thoughtful, intelligent, and gracious notes and bon mots on my talkpage and elsewhere. Especially coming from an editor I can't recall ever dealing with before, it was highly appreciated. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• You're welcome and it is kind of you to say so. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U

FYI - The RFC/U regarding your recent block for improper removal of cleanup tags has been posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden, per the instructions of the blocking admin. SnottyWong ^communicate 00:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

UK IRC community meeting

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Richwales

I understand the thought behind your "Off with his head" statement, but please consider changing it to "Oppose". It is important to keep the climate of RfAs constructive and nonprovocative. Thanks, Kingturtle = (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• The main provocation here is the detailed nature of my oppose, in which the candidate is shown to lack some basic understanding of core policies. This is a strong criticism but a necessary part of the RfA process. The heading of Off with his head is levity which, by adding some humour, might perhaps soften the blow. It draws attention to the article decapitation, which is the locus of the examples cited. And it is a literary reference to the Red Queen who is a famous archetype of despotic behaviour. The candidate is also being criticised by others for his willingness to block quickly rather than to warn and so the reference seems to work on several levels.

As the heading has been there for some time and the candidate must have read it by now, I prefer to let it stand. I shall instead explain to the candidate that there is nothing personal in this and get his views. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I did understand you meant the comment in jest, and I wasn't terribly offended. However, I think Kingturtle has a point, and IMO it would probably be better if you could change it to a simple "oppose". (But in case you were wondering — no, if I were an "uninvolved admin" and saw you make this kind of comment in someone else's RfA, I would not block you for incivility, and I probably wouldn't even think of reporting it anywhere — I would simply suggest that the comment might be a bit excessive and leave it at that.)

In a print medium such as e-mail, Wikipedia talk pages, etc., I feel we need to be especially careful in the way we express ourselves, since small nuances (which would be obvious in face-to-face conversation) may not end up being communicated as the writer intended. I've seen this sort of thing many times in RfA's — including my own current RfA, where many people have concluded from my comments that I must obviously fancy myself to be some sort of Judge Dredd — which in fact couldn't be further from the truth, but the damage is done and I doubt anything I say at this point can undo it.

Regarding the substance of your comments and those made by others, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to discuss them in detail while my RfA is still open, but I do recognize that some valid criticisms are being made (even if they hurt) — and regardless of which way the RfA finally turns out, I'm definitely going to have some "homework" to do. Thanks again for the feedback. Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well said. As you seem to be taking it well and to show that there's no hard feelings, I shall amend my summary. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

An article you nominated now has references

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tahvo_Putkonen has had references added to it. Apparently in Finnish they don't have personal name followed by family name as we do, but instead it is common to have family name, personal name, and then what we have as a middle name after that. I guess that's something for us all to remember when looking for sources in other languages in the future. Dream Focus 21:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• The order didn't matter for the searches I did - this stuff doesn't show up on Google scholar regardless. The main issue now is the status of the Genos site/journal. If genealogy resources and government documents are acceptable as sources then we can all have articles on Wikipedia. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I do see why you decided to change your summary, given the comments that had been made about it. However, I think it's a pity that others persuaded you to do so, as "off with his head" was, in the context, so totally appropriate. Some people seem to lack any sense of irony. Ah, well, I suppose enough people saw it before you changed it to get the point. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole discussion will be archived soon. And once you start analysing a joke, it ceases to be funny. But thanks for your interest. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

On Nagging

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For trying to save Nagging from sure deletion. Now add more sources, nag, nag, nag. Merry Xmas, bah humbug. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a good topic but my muse hasn't kicked in yet. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about source

Colonel Warden, regarding this, what specifically does the source you added support in the paragraph? I have a copy of The Encyclopedia of Japanese pop culture‎ in hand now, so I thought I'd ask you for some clarification. Thanks, --Nuujinn (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not very interested in Power Rangers. The article's talk page seems quite neglected - I suggest you start some discussion there. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden, being coy doesn't help your situation. I'm asking you why you added a reference from The Encyclopedia of Japanese pop culture‎. Have you actually had this book in your hands? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Spark (fire) for deletion

The article Spark (fire) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spark (fire) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GDallimore (Talk) 19:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have responded at the discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Topics surrounding Froward Point

You make a persuasive point, though I think there should be an article for Froward Point itself, which has some substantial things of note about it aside from the Brownstone Battery and the NCI lookout.

I suggest that three articles are required, because each looks at an entirely different aspect of the same location; Geography (and presumably wildlife), The Battery, The NCI station. I don't have the wherewithal to handle more than the NCI one, at least for the foreseeable future. I'm not even sure that this stage that the NCI one is going to survive. If it does my interest is in looking at articles for the other 43 NCI lookouts provided they are inherently notable. Most, like a school, are likely to be notable simply by existing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• My main interest in Froward Point is its curious name, which almost seems to be a misspelling of Forward. I shall be alert for sources now and wish you well with the other NCI stations. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It may be named after the South American point Cape Froward though that does not remove the possibility of spelling errors in each place. http://www.answers.com/topic/froward gives us a clue, though lacks authority. http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/q/l/qlmfhart.htm is a usage without explanation. http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Froward seems better as a source. I think we may as well carry on wondering :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The size of Wim Crusio's Wiki page

Hello Colonel Warden,

Wim Crusio is a scientist in the town of Pessac in western France and as of December 22nd, 2010 the Wim Crusio Wiki page constituted 28,725 bytes of information, where as the Wiki page for Ernest Rutherford, "The father nuclear physics" and winner of the nobel prize, only has a Wiki page of 27,302 bytes as of December 22nd, 2010, and Maurice Wilkins who won the nobel prize for his co-discovery of the structure of DNA has a wiki page of only 23,014 bytes, while Elizabeth Blackburn who won the nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2009 has only 11,065 bytes on her wiki page. I could add many more names of nobel prize winners, but if you wish to do so, please feel free to compare the amount of information in Wim Crusio's wki page to that of most nobel prize winners. I just thought I would point this fact out to the wiki community and ask for your comments on Win Crusio's Wiki page. Please comment on weather you think it is too large and perhaps should be reviewed or if you think the wiki pages of Ernest Rutherford and many of his fellow nobel prize winners are simply too small. Please feel free to leave your comments below this post. Bondiveres (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Listed are wiki page sizes of all the nobel prize winners for Physiology or Medicine for the last 8 years. Please compared these to Wim Crusio's wiki page of 28,725 bytes:

Robert G. Edwards 11,098 bytes
Jack W. Szostak 7,504 bytes
Carol W. Greide 9,605 bytes
Elizabeth Blackburn 11,065 bytes
Luc Montagnier 18,028 bytes
Françoise Barré-Sinoussi 6,950 bytes
Harald zur Hausen 9,985 bytes
Oliver Smithies 14,131 bytes
Martin Evans 24,109 bytes
Mario Capecch 13,940 bytes
Craig Mello 14,217 bytes
Andrew Fire 9,262 bytes
Robin Warren 5,187 bytes
Barry Marshall 13,074 bytes
Linda B. Buck 6,617 bytes
Richard Axel 19,924 bytes
Peter Mansfield 5,684 bytes
Paul Lauterbur 14,653 bytes
John E. Sulston 7,715 bytes
H. Robert Horvitz 4,080 bytes
Sydney Brenner 14,580 bytes

Note: All amounts displayed are as of 22 December 2010, and the average page size of these Nobel Laureates is 11,496 bytes, which is less than half that of Wim Crusio's wiki page of 28,725 bytes.

Based upon the above data, it would appear that a certain amount of information on Wim Crusio's wiki page was added by a sock puppet that he created in order to promote him self. I can only suggest this based on what I see from the data. I can not imagine how else Wim Crusio can have a wiki page more than twice the size of the average Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine for the last 8 years. I hope this is not the case, but I welcome your thoughts on this. I only ask one thing, and that is to explain how Wim Crusio's wiki should be more than twice the size of any of the Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine for the last 8 years and twice the size of an average winner of that prize. I look forward to hearing your comments. 64.85.252.225 (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)