User talk:Herostratus

Personal attack?

I'm disappointed in the way you approached Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adultism, mostly because it is a personal attack on me and my contributions to WP. Your overall tone is beyond condescending. And FYI, the "User:Freechild special" is obscure local history, of I have written 100s of articles that you have never complained about. Please commit to maintaining civility in the future. • Freechildtalk 15:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

re User:Jm1106, the Quincy Patriot Ledger, and User:SchuminWeb

Well, it's a little unusual to be writing to my own talk page, but since when I contact User:SchuminWeb on his talk page he either closes the discussion or just deletes my my edits, I guess this'll have to do. I'll point him over here and he's free to come here and read or not, but he's not (by convention) free to delete my own comments from my own talk page, absent a pretty compelling reason.

So User:SchuminWeb took a dislike to User:Jm1106, for reasons that remain a little fuzzy to me, and blocked him, again, not sure why. There's some discussion here and here, and since the discussion was closed, I created a new thread, but User:SchuminWeb deleted it with an edit summary of "When I said it is over, it is over", so here we are. Herostratus (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Dear User:SchuminWeb: Well, no, its not necessarily over even when you do say it's over; it doesn't work like that. And you're not supposed to revert edits even to your own talk page unless there's a good reason. (In addition, it's rude and annoying and just generally doesn't create a good communication pattern.) If my edits were vandalism or trolling or something, that'd be different. But they weren't.

OK, well, my unblock request was denied, but on technical grounds (only the actual user being blocked can use the {{unblock}} template, according to the reviewing admin; I'm appealing to him now on the grounds of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and we'll see how that goes, and the next step on that front will be WP:ANI if he's not amenable to reconsidering.)

In the meantime, User:Ravenswing reverted all your reverts (who knew the Patriot Ledger had so many agents in Wikipedia!). You need to block him too, I guess. Or is it different since he's not a hapless n00b? Are you going to be consistent here, I wonder.

At this point, I'm still willing to let this go if you unblock the guy and apologize to him. I'm not getting the impression so far that, notwithstaning your many stellar contributions, you have anything approaching the temperment to be an admin here, but at this point I'm still willing to just roll my eyes and ignore that.

Assuming you're not willing to unblock, the next step (IIRC) is mediation. Let's get a fresh set of eyes on the issue! So my question to you is, are you willing to unblock the guy and apologize, or if not are you willing to accept accept mediation? If either, great! If not, we'll move on to the next step. Herostratus (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(N.B. there's also a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Quincy, Massachsetts, Patriot Ledger Answer Book which may bear on the matter.) Herostratus (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved bystander here (and not an admin). I see where you're coming from, and I sense that you are finding this whole business very frustrating. All the same, I think this is probably a fight you are not going to win. All those similar links from a user with no other contributions does look promotional. The sites themselves are low value, high advertising density. It looks and feels like spam - even if it was done in good faith. It looks like a good block, properly executed. If it looks that way to me, as an uninvolved editor, (and neither a friend nor an enemy of SchuminWeb) you should consider the possibility (probability, actually) that it will look the same to other editors at mediation and ANI.

It is extremely unlikely that the user will be unblocked in their own absence - at the very least, people will want to hear their own explanation for what they were doing. I'd say there's a good chance they'd be unblocked if they requested it personally, with a sincere explanation, but it's just not going to happen otherwise.

The most likely outcome of taking this further is that you will get even more frustrated and possibly disillusioned. Please consider just dropping it and getting on with something more fun :)

Thparkth (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well of course this is a fight I'm "probably not going to win", although not for the reasons you suggest. Rather, it's becoming apparent that User:SchuminWeb is the habit of treating people people pretty darn shabbily, and he probably wouldn't do that unless he was pretty sure he could get away with it. And he's been around awhile it seems, so he's probably right. But you never know. And I'm not here for "fun" but to make an encyclopedia. I can't do it by myself. I need colleagues. And if they're indef blocked at random for no good reason, then I can't do what I'm here for.

I can't be "disillusioned". I'm already aware that the difference between a typical group of humans and a band of violently insane screeching howler monkeys is a matter of degree (if that). The subtext I'm kind of picking up from you and elsewhere is "here is a person you can't question, and if you try you'll just get told to screw off if not plain kicked out". Maybe. But you never know.

As to the substance of your point re the block, I agree that it looks bad. But it wasn't bad. (If it was so bad, why have the links been re-inserted and remain, apparently uncontentiously?) And once it's been pointed out by three editors that it wasn't bad, the correct response is not to close the threads relating to the matter and delete any further discussion. I recognize that User:Jm1106 is probably a lost cause, but the matter has now turned to the question of User:SchuminWeb's behavior. Herostratus (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty ironic, last November an editor discovered over one hundred links to SchuminWeb's personal blog,[[1]][[2]] including some that had it as a reliable source! Upon deletion of these links(properly cited) to his personal blog, which of course is ad supported, with an online store to purchase "SchuminWeb" merchandise!?!?, SchuminWeb (a wikipedia administrator) had no qualms speedily restoring his own blog to the encyclopedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.39.150 (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Blogs aren't usually reliable sources (although they can be, under certain circumstances). Did anyone ever bring this up for review? Herostratus (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

On consideration, though,, how come you know so much about this since this is your first edit? Are you a blocked editor using an anon account, or are you an non-contributing observer, or what? New editors are always welcome to contribute article content, but non-contributing observers are not necessarily welcome on Wikipedia governance issues -- it depends on the contribution, but tattling on Wikipedia editors probably isn't going get you much traction. Herostratus (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Dear User:SchuminWeb, as before I'm communicating with you on my talk page (so that you can't just delete my edits - you deleted the last one (just pointing to this page) with an edit summary of "What part of 'done' do you not understand?". I've left a talkback template on your talk page. Whether you follow it here and read this up to you.

OK, forget the block of User:Jm1106 for now. I'm pursuing that through other venues. I guess the issues now is your actions. Let's review:

• At User talk:SchuminWeb#Question about additions to multiple Massachusetts articles, an editor questioned User:Jm1106's actions, you agreed and you reverted the edits and indef blocked User:Jm1106.
• Two editors objected (one at that thread and me -- not having seen the previous thread and just responding to your reverts -- at User talk:SchuminWeb#What's the deal with User:Jm1106?.
• You gave a fairly perfunctory reply and then closed the threads (With on page summary of beginning "This drama is over" and ending "That's the end of it".
• Since the threads were closed, I opened a new thread informing you of my unblock request (and also expressing general displeasure with you and warning you off IRC. Maybe that last bit was out of line, but whatever -- I was pretty mad.) But you deleted that thread with an edit summary of "When I said it is over, it is over".
• I replied with a pointer to this page to the offer of mediation and so forth, and you deleted it with an edit summary of "What part of 'done' do you not understand?.

Meanwhile, on another front:

• After you blocked User:Jm1106 (without warning or explanation), I added a welcome note and a note explaining the we were working on getting her unblocked. (I hoped that she would be unblocked before she returned, and if not that at least the note would keep from scaring her off together.)
• But you deleted' my edits.
• And the unblock was denied on technical grounds (only the blocked person can use that template on that page, or whatever). And I still haven't gotten that fixed, although I'm working on it.
• And the person finally did come back, saw she was blocked, and said "Um, what happened? I added some links and this whole crazy drama unfolded? I guess that's all the Wikipedia contributions I'll be making."
• So unless User:Jm1106 is yanking our chain -- and there's no reason to believe that -- you just pissed away a perfectly good new editor (assist: User:JamesBWatson).

Does that mean nothing to you? Are you still proud of your actions?

Forgive me for speaking like a Dutch uncle, but this sort of petulant, imperious behavior is not acceptable for a Wikipedia admin, period. This is not how functional and successful organizations operate. This is not how the junior officers of functional and successful organizations communicate with new members (e. g. User:Jm1106) or established members (e.g. me). This is not OK behavior.

Thinking it over, I'd say it's gone past the time where you can fix this with an apology. However, you can offer an explanation. Maybe you're having a bad week. Maybe a relative died, or you're quitting smoking, or something. Tell me you're not normally like this. Because if you are, I'm not seeing that you have temperment to be an admin here. (And there's no shame in that -- I don't either (or so I've been told), and there are lots of other ways to contribute). I'm reaching out to you as a fellow member of the Class of '05. Help me out here. Herostratus (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

---

---

A couple of things. First, even though you're not allowed to make unblocks on behalf of others (except in ANI), when you make an unblock request if there are any links in it, the "reason" has to start with 1= or else it fails. Second, goading an editor with "does that mean nothing to you? Are you still proud of your actions" turns this into a zero-sum game - the other person now has nothing to gain by capitulating; you then smack them further by adding your own reasoning for their action, all completely made up - geez, can you get any more inappropriate, and can you ensure that your negotiations will not work any further? Forcing apologies is also a pretty bad idea: there's an essay somewhere about that, probably at WP:APOLOGY or something. Personally, I think you made this situation worse by using an unblock template on the person's page on their behalf, and then making a huge deal on their talkpage about how bad of a block it was, and how hard done by they were: THAT is what will drive them away, not the block itself - they have a right to request their own unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"They have a right to request their own unblock"... Yeah, the unblock-denier made this point. But I expect that 90%+ of brand-new users wrongly blocked throw up their hands in disgust and leave forever (with a story of what a clusterfuck the Wikipedia is), and of the remaining 10% most are probably daunted by the process (I mean... "when you make an unblock request if there are any links in it, the "reason" has to start with 1= or else it fails" -- a brand-new user is supposed to know this sort of thing?). The whole point was to get the person umblocked before they came back. As to the "you're not allowed..." yes, you're allowed to do anything that will enhance the Wikipedia, per WP:ANI, and "not pissing away new users for no good reason" is a subset of "enhance the Wikipedia". When the day comes when we are saying "This action will damage the Wikipedia, but it required by the rules"

Regarding the other point, well, look, after being told "STFU" a couple times my patience with this guy is exhausted. I offered mediation. He didn't just refuse my offer but he deleted it. Of course I'm angry. This guy is in a lot more trouble than he probably realizes, and I'm giving him a last chance to dig his way out, is all. He can take it or not. Herostratus (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're clearly going about it the wrong way! Insanity is doing things the same way again and again and expecting a different result. Sticking up for what you think is "right" is commendable ... but the right means will lead to more succesful ends. Saying "bad bad stupid block by an idiot" is a massive fail. Telling the new, blocked user "okay, let me help you ... here's why you were blocked, here's how it looks to the project, so here's how to proceed in the future, and HERE is how to request an unblock, and HERE is how I'll help you move forward" is the right way. You're putting the blame - and call to action - on someone else. Have a little WP:AGF (by the way, I can 100% understand the block). You know the old saying about catching flies with honey ... well, it's time for you to put the vinegar away! Neither Schumin nor the declining admin have any further say in this process, nor should they, so save your vitriol and back away from the dead horse. How do you plan on moving forward so that everyone wins (and I do mean EVERYONE). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, guess what? I did do that, and User:SchuminWeb deleted my edits to the user's talk page. (I didn't use the exact approach you suggested, but I welcomed the user and told her we were working on getting her situation resolved.) Does that change your mind about what's going on here? And I have every intention of moving forward. Herostratus (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

re Age of consent reform

I think the age of consent reform page is a mess. I don't know if I agree with listing NAMBLA's opinions. Its one thing to be talking about people who say 16 is a little high for the age of consent and want to lower it to 14 but I don't think any serious people want to abolish the age limit altogether. Do you think that should be changed to downplay fringe opinions. --99.50.129.134 (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's your day so...

Congratulations! Have a nice day!OTAVIO1981 (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you. It's not my birthday or saint's name-day, but I am having a nice day, so thanks. Herostratus (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

He's referring to this (it puzzled me too ) - so happy Herostratus day (or perhaps the 1 year anniversary thereof)! Egg Centric 19:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oooooh, OK. Of course, I prefer to think of "my day" as July 21st. What a day that was! The roar of the flames mingling with the cries of the Ephesians... ah, glorious! Herostratus (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Herostratus. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 04:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

re Talmud

Hi Herostratus I know for a fact that Talmud quote I provided was accurate even though in the past I've made dumb contributions but I can't remember where specifically it was. I'm looking for a source but if I can't find one could you help?--RJR3333 (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Here I found one not exactly sure if its the best though. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_55.html --RJR3333 (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for advice and counsel

Hi. You don't know me, but I've run across your work a couple times and I was so impressed I gave you an award each time. So I consider you fairminded and savvy. I'd like to ask for your counsel, if I may. It's not in your job description I guess, so no problem if you can't do this. I don't have (or want) any WikiFriends, but I sure could use some advice and maybe a neutral look at my situation.

The deal is, I'm in a situation with another user which I'm not willing to let drop, for what I consider to be good reason (he would be glad to let it drop). He's refused mediation, so I'm unsure of my next step, although I have some ideas.

Well, you know what couples counsellors say -- "If he won't come in, at least come in yourself". You can't mediate this if the other party won't, but maybe you could review the situation and help me figure out what's going on, if I'm being unreasonable, and what my next steps might be.

Again, this is a random request that's out of your pay grade, so only if you want to. Herostratus (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Herostratus: It's great to hear from you; I have not crossed paths with you for some time. Indeed, I have not forgotten your kind words. I'm always willing to help users out in giving an outside opinion and I'd be happy to help you with your situation. Rather than discuss this on talk pages to begin with, I'd recommend that we take it to e-mail or IRC so as not to "set the cat amongst the pigeons" whilst we discuss the four key elements - the What, Space, Time and Outcome. These are 1) what the issue is between the two of you; 2) the space and time of the issue as I term it (the articles and talk pages which are the dispute interaction space, and the chronology of events which is the timeline); and 3) what you'd like as a desired outcome, the ideal scene once the dispute is over. Feel free to e-mail me with a summary of these, preferably with links -- but don't worry about diffs, since pages of diffs are often more of an encumbrance than a help -- and we can go from there. Alternatively, if you use IRC and you have some free time, please let me know when we could make an appointment for an IRC discussion on the subject; I regret I do not know your timezone, but mine is GMT/GMT+1 (United Kingdom). With my best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, will do, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Haven't heard from you yet Herostratus, should I be expecting an e-mail from you or did it vanish into the ether? --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm right on it. It's not a time-sensitive matter. The wheels here at Casa Herostratus grind slowly. Herostratus (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I sent you an email describing the situation -- and also my disinclination to press forward, because of flaws in my case (it's still a good case, but not flawless). So it's all moot I guess, and the email has little purpose now -- you can read it if you want, or not. Oh well, thank you for your offer and your time spend so far, anyway. Herostratus (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied anyway. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:REFACTOR

Don't do this ever again (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I will. Herostratus (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Jive turkey

Thanks. :) Gigs (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Age of consent reform

2 users have said my edits on the pedophilia laws articles are all wrong so you might want to reevaluate my edits there. I'm sorry for making those bad contributions. I'm gonna stop editing but you might want to change the age of consent reform article because somebody my bias in it might cause me to get banned. --RJR3333 (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Also is it possible that I can delete my wikipedia account because I don't intend to use it anymore?--RJR3333 (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor pics

With regard to this [3] - this one's messy. You've got a bit of a DOUBLE hoax going on here. Yes, there are some images from the 1920-21 Soviet famine which have been misrepresented as being images of the Holodomor (like the ones in the category "Holodmor hoax" on Commons). But there are also images which do in fact appear to be from the Holodomor. And here you've got POV pushers on both sides. On one side, you've got folks which try to include the 1920-21 Soviet famine images in the article and perpetuate the myth of their authenticity. But on the other side you've got folks who try to remove all illustrative images under the pretext that they're all fake. Neither one is true. Just because SOME images are false, doesn't mean that ALL images are false. As Lothar points out, the user Jo0doe would fall in the latter camp, and he was deservedly banned for this [4]. But on Commons they don't really give a flip about POV or total nonsense in the image descriptions, they only care about whether a particular image is in public domain or not. Hence, he's still active there - and that's why the description of this particular image is nonsense (notice all the "disputed" notifications in the description).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism/General

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Greg Bard (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong and SAR status

I'm puzzled by your reverting my edit on the List of tallest buildings in the world. Even though Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China it is a part of China. If you take a look at Autonomous area you will see a list of other similar autonomous areas in China and in the rest of the World. In each case, these fall under the definition of non-sovereign states; at least for the purpose of displaying the flag according to MOS:FLAG#Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations. In particular, I believe the part that says "In general, if a flag is felt to be necessary, it should be that of the sovereign state ...not of a subnational entity, even if that entity is sometimes considered a 'nation' or 'country' in its own right" is what should apply in this case. If you disagree with that part of the Manual of Style or somehow think Hong Kong is a special case worthy of an exception, I would like to see your reasoning. Astronaut (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh

You're right, the MOS isn't very clear on the matter and my further research trying to find an authoritative preference wasn't as conclusive as I would want (though "The Manhattan Transfer" seems pretty strong). Part of the reason for my change was to revert an editor who consistently ignores the Wikipedia MOS for his/her own ideas concerning matters of style. Not the noblest reason for reverting but given that the MOS seems unclear on the matter and that the anon IP did not give a reason for the change I went with the revert anyway. I have no strong opinion on the matter but I imagine that at least for the Stones there probably has been a discussion about this somewhere. SQGibbon (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Antisexualism

So far I've avoided getting into an edit war with you on this article, but I'd like to know: 1) Why do you keep trying to merge the article, when this outcome was not endorsed at the request for deletion? 2) Why are you personally qualified to do any type of major editing whatsoever on this article, when your "contributions" to the deletion discussion consisted almost solely of obnoxiously and arrogantly flaunting your almost complete ignorance of the whole subject matter in question? AnonMoos (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Since YOU have been doing far more edit-warring on that article than I have, it would seem to ill behoove you to deliver condescending patronizing lectures on basic Wikipedia policies, when you stand in greater need of such lectures than I do. Furthermore, it's hard for me to forget that on the AfD you flamed out by exhibiting embarrassing and aggressive displays of ignorant-yet-arrogant behavior. It's nice if in the meantime you've acquired some of the knowledge which you conspicuously lacked on that occasion -- but it would be even better if you could tone things down just the slightest bit, and display a modicum of humility in deploying such new knowledge (if any) by not taking it upon yourself to unilaterally overturn the results of an AfD. Furthermore, the situation with antisexuals is pretty much exactly the same as that with asexuals: A community of self-identified asexuals coalesced in the early 21st century, aided by the popularity of online communities... However, in the 21st century the anonymity of online communication and general popularity of social networking online has facilitated the formation of a community built around a common asexual identity (though the process actually seems to have begun in the 1990s) -- except that the antisexuals seem to have generated less mainstream news coverage. Furthermore, your very superficial solution of redirecting the article to "Erotophobia" really resolves nothing, since erotophobia is a pathological condition or mental health problem, and self-proclaimed antisexuals mostly reject the idea that they're suffering from a condition. I've been monitoring the antisexualism article, and have been dissatisfied with your role in editing it, but have not previously intervened. However, while freely admitting that the article has significant areas of needed improvement, your methods of attempting to deal with such gaps do not appear to have improved or resolved anything, and it would create much less friction and edit warring in the future if you would adopt a different approach, preferably in consultation with others. AnonMoos (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been incrementally improving the article as best I know how with the information available to me off and on for several years. Sorry if I used strong language, but it seems to me that you've been making drastic changes to the article which are not justified by the AfD outcome or your personal qualifications. In either case, redirecting an article about an overall philosophy and/or worldview and/or advocacy cause to articles which dismiss it as a mere mental disorder or nasty brutish habit of mind seems to be far from satisfactory... AnonMoos (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been incrementally improving it as best I can, but I am not really a major author of it... AnonMoos (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Reminder to all: keep it about improving the article, not about editors. The use of the word you is a red flag. WP is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've found WP:TIGERS to be helpful.
To answer the question "Why are you personally qualified to do any type of major editing whatsoever on this article". Bluntly, any editor is qualified to perform major or minor editing at any time, in line with the Five Pillars, policies, guidelines, essays, any mediation results, and arbitration decisions. This is succinctly exemplified in WP:BRD: be Bold (with edit summary), don't be surprised at Reverts, and be prepared to Discuss. The paucity of sources and POV in this article has tempted me to renominate it for deletion (and I've never done that), but I'm going to take editors at their word that they are seeking reliable sources. --Lexein (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To my mind, displaying a conspicuous lack of knowledge about the subject matter of an article does not qualify someone to make major alterations. Making edits or deletion nominations on technical narrow bureaucratic-procedural grounds is one thing, but implicitly claiming expertise which you do not in fact possess is quite another thing. I really have no desire to fight with Herostratus for the sake of fighting (which is why I avoided saiying anything about the matter for many months), but have been trying to induce some degree of non-unilateralist collaborativeness which previously seemed to be somewhat lacking... AnonMoos (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To compensate for "lack of knowledge" we employ discussion and consensus to arrive at a suitable, and agreeable outcome. Bold edits, Reversion, followed by Discussion. That's how we do it. The article definitely needs waaaay more reliable sources (each "a" stands for my estimate of the number of reliable independent sources required), per the bedrock Wikipedia requirement for WP:RS reliable sources and WP:V verifiability based on those sources. Is there any confusion about those requirements? We all want to simultaneously improve Wikipedia and improve this article. Please WP:AGF about the intentions or actions of other editors, and please read WP:DISPUTE resolution procedures in order to handle any problems you encounter. --Lexein (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source vetting

I like the cut of the jib at User:Herostratus/Ref_vetting_checklist, and I've copyedited and made two suggestions. I've created a redirect WP:RSVETTING for e-z typing. I invite your assessment of WP:WikiProject IRC/Sources. --Lexein (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

How about calling it WP:Reliable source checklist? If asked, I would have recommended a {{RFC}} Request for Comment, or leaving a request at at WP:Requests for feedback prior to launch... --Lexein (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Marcin Kaspshak/Kasprzak

I moved the article you created (Marcin Kasprzak) to "Kasprzak" since that appears to be how he's named in English language sources (I couldn't find anything for Kaspshak). Btw, while the article is short, it's well written and to the point. It just needs some refs. If you had let me know about it back in February I could've helped with it (of course, I'll still help with it) and we could've thrown it up on DYK. Next time you got one, drop me a note. Volunteer Marek  14:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake, for backing me up

Thanks for your help and understand over the Catriona Drew incident. I don't normally nominate articles for afd, and so was a bit disappointed when my first attempt was mocked. Thanks for your help RDN1F TALK 20:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry hero, I was ready to let this lie despite my strong disagreement with your actions, but after this [5] over the top WP:DICK move, I decided to revert your refactor of my close. Clearly, this is a user in need of a clue-level adjustment, one much bigger than a mere minnow can provide. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Time out for both you. Remember we're all one big happy (albeit dysfunctional) family here -- but remember, you can't spell "dysfunctional" without "fun"! Herostratus (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Groan [6]. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Vereniging MARTIJN website link

Hi, your TaalVerbeteraar bot removed two links from the Vereniging MARTIJN article, namely links to that association's website. The website in question, martijn.org is only accessible from the Netherlands and Belgium, because of constant DDoS attacks. Your bot is probably running from another country. If you would use a Dutch proxy, you'd be able to view their website. I could re-add the links and add "only accessible from the Netherlands and Belgium" after it, but your - or someone else's - bot would probably intervene again. What do you think is the best solution for this issue, maybe integrate something about this in the article? Or maybe just omit the link altogether? --82.171.70.54 (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the history page: it wasn't a bot, it was you. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if you respond, I prefer you do it here and not on my (empty) user page. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that if it only accessible from the low countries, it's probably not a useful link to have in the English Wikipedia. Our external links policies pretty much forbid links that a typical average user can't access. I wouldn't go out of my way anyway to include the link; given the Princess Amalia kerfluffle, the Amsterdam sex case, etc. I don't know if we can trust this site as to what they might put on there, so I'd be leery of linking to the site in any case. As to putting the material in the article instead, sure, as long as it's properly sourced (which would exclude the association's website itself -- besides being inaccessible, it's probably not generally an OK source for much information about the association, not being neutral.) Herostratus (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The website of the Republican Party isn't neutral either, but we still link to it from Republican Party (United States), so that's a non-argument. But I agree with you that if a "typical average user can't access" it, it's probably not worth adding it. I'm not going to integrate it in the article either, not worth the trouble. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(lurking) WP:V#Access to sources does not require that sources be easily verifiable. May I suggest adding a URL which includes a web proxy, which allows verification from other countries? I had to add this to the talk page at Roomano. It helped to end some WP:LAMEness. --Lexein (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of it as an external link, which is how it was used, and WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #7 is "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country." You're correct that if used as a reference the accessability requirement is much lower. But the organization's website is not an acceptable reference generally -- I guess it would be an OK ref for the organization's address, and the names of its leaders, and a few other basic things like that. Certainly not for membership numbers or much else. Don't really know how that proxy thingy works, but if User:82.171.70.54 want to figure it out, it'd be an OK external link. (I still am not crazy about it even an external link, as we can't be 100% confident that they won't decide to shoot the works and lay out a bunch of "content that is illegal to access in the state of Florida" (WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #3). And I don't want to have to regularly check that they haven't done that. But I guess we can't decline to link to sites based on what they might do, so if User:82.171.70.54 or anyone wants to do the proxy magic, OK.) Herostratus (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I got it to work. I dunno. The site itself is OK, but some of the links it contains look a little sketchy. I don't really want to click on Modern Boylover Magazine and so forth, but if any of these links are themselves in violation of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #3, this could be problematic, I think. Probably better off not linking to the site, on the grounds of general prudence, I would say. Herostratus (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Elsie Paroubek

I want to thank you for your kind words on my Elsie Paroubek article. I worked my tail off on it, and it'd be twice as good if I could lay hands on the Chicago Daily News articles about her. I have submitted it for approval to Wikiproject Illinois, so we'll see what happens there. --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Civil

Please see WP:CIVIL. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'd give you jester's privilege on that one. I didn't LOL but I did Chuckle To Myself (CTM). --MTHarden (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Admin reconfirmation

I was just reading your essay. I've got to say, I think it's a very clever idea. If you can get passed the drama (which you're clearly trying to do by requesting the MfD before the RfA), I think it might work - once. After that, the MfDs are likely to be killed with fire. Having said that, it's a great interpretation of WP:BOLD and I think that it would be very difficult for any admin to retain the tools against a clear consensus from the reconfirmation RfA.

On the other hand, surely the entire thing could be re-written using the normal procedure - suggesting that editors suggest a recall, or an RfC, or ArbCom. Perhaps as an essay WP:De-sysopping procedure? Worm^TT · (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Hey, thanks for DYK reviewing the song.

To answer the Hot 100 bit, Contemporary Christian songs tend to get pretty decent media coverage and even airplay (CCM radio has an audience of around 7 million listeners), but are generally blocked from the Hot 100 due to weak digital sales (the current top selling Christian song isn't even in the Top 200 on iTunes). If there were any negative reviews, I couldn't find them through Google. :P

Anyway, thanks again. :) Toa Nidhiki05 18:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson (2nd nomination)

Hi Herostratus. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Le Dernier Homme

Hi, I reviewed [your DYK nomination of Le Dernier Homme] and it all looks great except for an issue with the plot summary. If you could rewrite that, I'll give it a big green check mark. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a question

Did you make other changes on The Ropers? Because there were some other things added on to there. You should explain on who Debbie Hopper is? From : CPGirlAJ CPGirlAJ (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Rally Squirrel has been nominated for deletion

Considering that you are the article's author and main contributor, you should know that Rally Squirrel has been nominated for deletion. I didn't nominate it, but the nom failed to notify you. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rally Squirrel Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Template testing

Hi Herostratus,

Steven Walling and I are currently running an A/B test of level 1 Huggle warning templates to see if changing the content of a warning has an impact on the user who receives it. I noticed that you recently proposed a change to some commonly-used Twinkle deletion notices [7]. It looks to me like the discussion stalled because some editors felt strongly that users need to feel like they're getting a warning (so they pay attention to the message and go save their article) even though they're not actually being warned. I'm skeptical about that idea – we did some research over the summer and found that most article authors and editors never participate in deletion discussions, and the tiny number of people who do participate has been steadily decreasing since 2004 (documentation here and very telling graph to the right). My suspicion is that the bitey-ness of the template instantly turns people off from trying to rescue their article... I could be totally wrong, but we should test this hypothesis.

Deletion notification and participation by year

Would you be interested in working with us to try a little science and run an A/B test of whether or not changing the image and content of the deletion notice makes a difference? We can randomize the template delivery, track who gets which template, and then analyze who participates in deletion discussion, goes back to work on their article, etc. Then we can actually see if aggressiveness of imagery/content makes people pay attention or just drives them away! What do you think? --Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Left a response for you on my talk page --Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

So, I threw something together here. Default is the old message and New is my rewrite. Content-wise, my aim was to create a completely different message, so that the effects (if any) will be readily apparent. We can test multiple versions, too: default with default image or with new image, new with default image or new image, default and new with no image, etc. Feel free to edit or leave comments on the talk page. And aside from PROD and AfD, are there other commonly-used TW deletion notices we can test? There's a ton of CSD ones and they're all different, but maybe we could pick the one that's used the most and is the least warning-worthy (i.e., not attack page or vandalism)... --Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Herostratus, in addition to the deletion notices you've talked about, Maryana and I have put our next round of warnings to test with Huggle up on-wiki. If you're interested in giving us some feedback etc, the full list is:

1. {{uw-test1-rand}}
2. {{uw-delete1-rand}}
3. {{uw-npov1-rand}}
4. {{uw-unsor1-rand}}
5. {{uw-error1-rand}}
6. {{uw-blank1-rand}}
7. {{uw-spam1-rand}}
8. {{uw-bio1-rand}}
9. {{uw-attack1-rand}}

Thanks again for chatting with us about this work. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jenna Rose for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenna Rose is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (3rd nomination) 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.

I noticed you were a member of the previous AfD discussion. I have nominated the page again and felt like it was appropriate to notify you. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Le Dernier Homme

The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ex-gay movement

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ex-gay movement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Template testing project, now in Beta

Hi Herostratus, just wanted to let you know that we've teamed up with WikiProject user warnings on a template testing task force. We also have a hub on Meta for cross-wiki tests (we're planning on trying this out on Portuguese and possibly other projects in the near future). Please join up if you're interested in helping with more template testing! We could definitely use your help on the deletion notifications, which I'd like to test soon. Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Herostratus! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

East Kilbride

Just curious if you have anything that supports this being the "official" website? It appears to be just another geodomainer commercial site. I suppose it's possible that a community signed an agreement with a geodomainer to establish it as official - but in this case, I can't find anything that supports this newly added eastkilbride.co.uk as being any more official than the similar site eastkilbride.com - which is also a commercial geodomainer site. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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

DYK nomination of Hotel Arctic (Murmansk)

Hello! Your submission of Hotel Arctic (Murmansk) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pgallert (talk) 07:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

MyMaths

I agree with what you are saying, really I do. Although I think it could just have a little article, because loads of people use it in the whole world, and in loads of schools around the planet they set homework on it. Also, it has currently four million students on it and is a subscription website, as you have probably gathered. Respond if you have anything to say, and, as this isn't a proper account I'm using, you could create the article. If you really strongly agree with this, just tell me, and I'll drop it. Thanks. 90.206.245.199 (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few sources about MyMaths:
http://www.thekingsschool.co.uk/Senior/Academic-Departments/Mathematics/Mymaths-website/
http://www.whitbycc.co.uk/documents/MyMaths1.pdf
http://www.kingsley.worcs.sch.uk/media/4042/how_to_use_mymaths.pdf

I've never heard of Cut-the-Knot, and I did a quick Google search on it and it had the same results as MyMaths. 90.206.245.199 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to a school which sets homework on the site:
http://www.school-portal.co.uk/GroupRenderCustomPage.asp?GroupID=336816&ResourceId=1288823
http://www.haydonbridgehigh.co.uk/cms3/index.php/37-curriculum/mathematics/39-mymaths
90.206.245.199 (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've now created an account. Just so I could be in the same balance with you lot, a proper user. SilverRadar (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Russian language poets

"This is a list of authors who have written poetry in the Russian language"

This is the only required qualification for adding a poet to the list that I'm aware of.--INeverCry 20:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hotel Arctic (Murmansk)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

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) 00:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi Herostratus,

I noticed you replied to some feedback from the new Feedback Dashboard feature – you might be interested in the task force Steven Walling and I just created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Thanks for diving in on your own and helping the newbies, and I hope you'll sign up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Censor - main page

The thing is it is not just the main page. It is also portals, project pages etc.. It is really everywhere, even articles. really the main guideline should be titled "Wikipedia is very censored, just not in all the ways that might stop it being a useful encyclopaedia".

After all the following rules apply (at least):

• No (US) state secrets
• No illegal porn
• No copyvios
• No libel
• Not much non-free content
• No non-notable articles
• No non-verifiable content
• No non-significant content
• No content which consensus objects to
• No soap-boxing
• No NPOV
• No BLP violations
• No material subject to a DMCA takedown notice

So really what not-censored says is very narrow. And that is "if the community thinks by consensus that material is appropriate for inclusion an article, then the material is not disqualified by virtue of offensiveness". Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Dana Tyler

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dana Tyler. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Raised by the Stars

I'm a bit concerned about that book - over the past few days, I've seen a concerted effort on the part of two IP editors (see 68.207.187.9 and 199.80.10.72) spamming links to it across multiple articles. Just FYI. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

File:220px-Cumfart 02.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:220px-Cumfart 02.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 22:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hello, Herostratus! You suggested that I message you with advice requests, but I could only figure out how to send you a "message of appreciation". So thank you for offering to help! Would you mind looking at my pending My Water's On Fire Tonight "The Fracking Song" article to make edits or suggestions? I'm assuming that I am not permitted to "create" the page yet because I am new. Does this mean I need to wait for another editor? Thanks!

CyclopediaSenorita (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Vox Femina Los Angeles

It was a PROD so I've restored it to Vox Femina Los Angeles. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?

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) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Wonderful :D :D B^e——C_ritical 02:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

English words with uncommon properties

Thanks for the offer! I would gladly accept it, if it were not for the fact that it has all the signs of a lost cause.

For one, Wikipedia is a hobby and the deletionist clique just infuriates me and I am certain that, regardless of what revisions were to be done, the article would not be allowed back, simply because (in my opinion) they appear to get a power-kick out by playing bureaucrats and accepting the guidelines (which they wrote) as dogma: the number of daily visitor alone would have stopped the deletion if that were not the case and they were acting for the greater good.

Secondly, I am not sure where to start and what shape to give it.
I became interested in the article as it was abandoned — as are many of the English language pages —, but had a lot going for it. The main virtue of the page was that it was a navigation hub — I mean: 'who specifically searches the exact words "English words with uncommon properties"?'), so I'd like at least to salvage that aspect. Most sections had their own page, so I thought that the simplest course of action was to create a navigation template (here) and create a handful of small pages.
On a slightly more ambitious scale, the page Scrabble words in English begs to be created as the page Scrabble goes to great lengths to keep the relevant section short and there is considerable overlap with the late English words with uncommon properties with any scrabble study guide as a reference.
Regarding recreating English words with uncommon properties, in addition to layout, a major problem is the references. The most commonly cited references in terms of word trivia are:

1. Language on Vacation: An Olio of Orthographical Oddities
2. Making the Alphabet Dance
3. Word Nerd: More Than 17,000 Fascinating Facts about Words
4. Word ways
5. FAQ of Oxford dictionary (http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/asktheexperts/frequently-asked-questions and some OED about pages)

All of which are written as interesting, but non-comprehensive lists of word trivia.

As I mentioned, I am not sure what to do with it. So I'd love to hear your opinion on the matter.--Squidonius (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, re Basil I

Much appreciated, I'll see if I can add some more references to the body of the text also.

Urselius (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahem...

Hello, Herostratus. You have new messages at Talk:Faleristics.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Djathinkimacowboy 23:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the way we presently handle controversial images?

Hi. The discussion at WT:NOT has run its course. I'd like to distill the thoughts of those who perceive a problem with the way we presently handle controversial content. If you think there's a problem, would you mind summarising what you think it is for me here? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I hadn't read WP:HARDCORE. Hopefully we can come up with a simple formula that rules out images of goatse.cx, bukkake, gokkun, scrotal inflation, cock and ball torture, without excluding images of tank man, temple garment, depictions of Muhammad, and the Bhopal disaster from relevant contexts.

On your grouping religious, corporate and government together:

Controversial religious images seem to me to be distinct from the other forms of hegemonic censorship you mention - corporate and governmental - because they evoke a kind of revulsion in the hearts of believers, whereas the latter two are usually simple impositions from above with no real emotional involvement of the majority being "protected" from them. While your average Indian won't be offended by seeing images of the Bhopal disaster, and your average Chinese won't be personally offended by an image of Tank Man, your average Sunni Muslim will be, on a very personal level, by depictions of Muhammad. I can't speak about Mormons because I don't know any.

So, I do have concerns for the frivolous use of religiously offensive images here out of an appreciation for the real effect they will have on many readers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding

"Controversial" is however an easy concept to grasp. Therefore, for purely political reasons, I would support the redaction of "controversial" images if this is the only way to get rid of the porn and extreme sexual imagery.[8]

Would you support a policy that removes all of the violent and misogynistic sexual imagery, but also moves the lead images of Human penis, Human anus and Human vagina down the page? I think that may happen if we choose to pattern out controversial image curation on that of the RSs, the policy I think I first heard Jayen advocating. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Herostratus (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard upgrade

Hi Herostratus,

Thanks for signing up for the Feedback Dashboard response team! I wanted to let you know that the tool just got an important update (see here for details). I also wanted to invite you to the IRC office hours session that Steven and I are going to hold this Sunday, December 4. Hope you can make it and share your experience/questions with us! Thanks again, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey there

If you're ever online drop by my page and say hi sometime. --DanielCD (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Melanie Phillips

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Melanie Phillips. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I have responded to your queries on each individual talk page. Please reply there. Pass a Method talk 10:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this editor's addition to the Human article. I have stated as much at Talk:Human#Possibly. 193.169.145.43 (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Posible sockpuppet

Have you used any IP account by any chance in the past two days? Pass a Method talk 15:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's very wrong to accuse or imply that someone is a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet unless you have proof. There is no proof that Herostratus is a sockpuppet. If you are implying that he is me, you couldn't be further off. 193.169.145.46 (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Final warning

If you stalk my edits, rearrange my talk page, or re-display sub-sections of mine (which i have removed) i will report you to ANI. Your edits are bordering harassment and you're very irritating. Pass a Method talk 16:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Having looked through your contributions, if you report Herostratus, I will report you for adding unsourced material, as well as for adding unsourced material and pretending that a source supports it. 193.169.145.46 (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If you report Herostratus, I will additionally report you for Wikipedia:Edit warring and for violating WP:TALK.

And you should look at Herostratus's user page. He is in good-standing with the Wikipedia community and its founder (with some mishaps), so why should they believe you, whose editing is often untrust-worthy, over Herostratus? 193.169.145.46 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If you report me, and he reports you, I will report both of you to each other, then report myself to a third party and report him to you. I hope I have made myself clear. This is my final warning to myself. --Herostratus (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

He was reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring anyway. Not by me either. 193.169.145.62 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sexual fetishism article

Hey, Herostratus. Would you help keep an eye on this article? I removed inaccurate editing and cleaned up a few things, but was recently reverted by an IP editor who I believe to very likely be the editor who was just blocked for being a WP:SOCKPUPPET after complaining about bias at Talk:Pedophilia. That editor stated that he would be keeping a very close eye on me. I believe it is him trolling and WP:Wikistalking. I already reverted him (or maybe, giving the benefit of doubt, someone else) once at the Sexual fetishism article. Basically, sexual fetishes are not always classified as mental disorders, as made clear by the current DSM. The editor who added that sexual fetishism is a mental disorder first off in the lead backed it to the DSM-5, which are only proposals right now and, if accepted, will likely only classify sexual fetishism as a mental disorder if it causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life...just like the DSM currently does. It was also sourced to a blog (which of course is not a reliable source...unless along the lines of WP:Verifiability#Newspaper and magazine blogs) which also makes clear that sexual fetishes are not always classified as mental disorders. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Titled v. entitled

Not arguing the point as to the Reeves article, but FYI: Random House Dictionary gives "titled" in its first and only definition as having been "given a title, esp. nobility." For "title" as a verb, it's *14th* definition is "to furnish with a title; designate by an appellation; entitle." Furthermore, it defines "entitle" in one of only three definitions as "to call by a particular title or name: What was the book entitled?" I think "entitled" is a perfectly correct and well-understood meaning as I used it, and it certainly sits higher up the food chain of usage according to Random House Dictionary. Add the inflective elegance of the word and I much prefer it. Just my opinion. I'm not changing anything. Thanks. Monkeyzpop (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the congenial reply. Either way is fine with me, I just prefer the slightly more elegant (and/or "stuffy" ;-) version. All's well. Monkeyzpop (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Avery Watts

Hi, just thought you might be interested in this AfD as you tagged the article for notability back in 2010, I think the process needs more experienced eyes, it got kept because one person voted weak keep, after an ip (only contribution) and a user-fan (50% of contribs to AfD) added a load of non-notable links/events to the debate, so the person who AfD'd it re-listed it to get more input. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

OK looked into it. Guy is probably not notable but has a couple minor notability markers, didn't feel strongly enough either way to cast a vote. Herostratus (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Saw that, thanks, you have added a serious bit of analysis to the debate, I'm not phazed either, but imho Wikipedia is used/abused by too much of this junk. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Revert at Talk:Soviet Union

I just thought that the IP was responding to me, as if suggesting that he believed that "Centralized" was not unnecessary. But I do agree that it may have been a bit pointless.

This is tangentially related, but before I forget to ask, could you take a quick look at this? Is it a good idea, or a waste of edits?

Thanks. →Στc. 08:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Invite

I invite you to comment here Pass a Method talk 11:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with the gender gap

There are a number of different things that are being tried to address the gender gap. We've got an e-mail list, among other things, and several experimental programs. Sarah Stierch is sort of our lead person at this point; I'd suggest dropping her a note, either at her talk page or via her e-mail. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Offensive material reversion

I didn't notice there was a discussion on this. Sorry about that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No prob. Herostratus (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge

I invite you to comment here Pass a Method talk 05:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

User:PassaMethod

I noticed earlier that User:113.106.194.221 tried to alert you to some changes made by User:PassaMethod, but they were caught in a false positive hit on one of Wikipedia's edit filters (the filter has been modified now, so that shouldn't happen again). But to pass on the message that you did not get, the specific changes were to Category:Erotic fiction and to Elvis Presley, which User:113.106.194.221 believed were problematic.

I've looked at them myself, and they were indeed problematic - the changes to Elvis Presley, and also to Priscilla Presley, were essentially a lot of improperly sourced synthesis and other unsourced claims, and I have reverted them and have warned PassaMethod about them. The Category:Erotic fiction change was clearly wrong too, so I have similarly reverted that.

Anyway, this was just to pass on the message you didn't get, and to let you know what I have done - I'll keep an eye on those articles too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct, I don't don't like any of PassaMethod's editing. See these discussions or topics for why.[9][10][11][12]. He is a horrible, horrible editor, often including WP:OR or outright falsehoods (as witnessed at the Virginity article where he was reverted [13]) or misrepresentation of sources. Other examples include this edit which was reverted to the Child sexual abuse article,[14] this edit which was reverted to the Human article[15] (which was also discussed[16]), and the discussion of synthesis regarding his edits to the Pedophilia article.[17] There are a lot more, some of which are documented on his talk page.

Now he's created the Sexually suggestive article. Ugh, I don't feel that this user should edit any topics, let alone sexual topics. Can't we get a topic ban for this user? I wish he'd just stay away from these topics because he isn't that educated on them and it's only a matter of time before he adds OR/synthesis to them. He also recently had his user name changed from User:PassaMethod to User:Pass a Method. Something needs to be done about this because the new name doesn't carry his previous contributions. He shouldn't get a WP:Fresh start. 50.19.178.57 (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess. He is an odd duck. I'm not sure what to do about him though. I'm not really up to following him around or anything. Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Will you take a look at his edits to the Puberty article, the "Morning wood and random erections section" in particular? "Morning wood" seems like a very unencyclopedic title.

He's more than an "odd duck," with some type of obsession with pedophilia, child sexual abuse and puberty topics. I know that users can be blocked if their editing is damaging the encyclopedia. This user is constantly adding poorly-sourced/unsourced material, and original research or synthesis. As for his user account, if it is still separated from his old account's contributions, that's a problem because it means his past problematic editing is harder to detect. It's like getting a clean start, something he's not supposed to have because he's still editing the same topics he was before. 50.19.24.180 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What Happened To My Article?

There was a article I just created and it was called User: CPGirlAJ/List Of Songs From Our Love Soundtrack. Then when I was going to edit it again, it was gone! I spend some time on it and I can't believe it was deleted. I didn't even get a warning! Is there anyway to get the article back? CPGirlAJ (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's here: User:CPGirlAJ/List Of Songs from the Our Love Soundtrack. Your link has space between "User:" and "CPGirlAJ", see: User: CPGirlAJ/List Of Songs From Our Love Soundtrack. The software is very picky that way.

I found it it by looking at your list of contributions (there's a "my contributions" limk near the top any time you're logged in (you can find other editor's contributions by going to their userpage, clicking "tools" on the left, then "User contributions" which is how I accessed yours.) Herostratus (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please consult with the working editors before redacting our work at "Rind et al. Controvesy. There is no consensus on trashing or devaluing these mathamatical studies. That's not were the consensus of the current editors wants to go.

If we wanted to denigrate, defame, attack the reputation of, deny the importance of, or diss the validity of the Rind, Bauserman, Tromomitch 1998 study, the Rind and Tromovitch 1997 study, and the Ulrich et al. 2005 study, and their 6 authors, then as you write above, "'A number' is ok." There is no consensus among the active editors as a team, about trashing, dismissing, condemning as worthless, those mathmatical studies, and this article about them out of anger or protest. As a matter of fact, I admire the brilliant mathematics, and want to do a good job presenting the study to the Wikipedia reader in a NPOV. You have been working alone on your own agenda...and we'd like to work with you as part of the team. "A number" would be fine, "several samples" would be better if we want to show our contempt for these brilliant mathematical studies. But trashing this study, in the introduction,is not the editors' consensus, and that's not where we are going with this article. This is not how Wikipedia works. We do want to work for consensus. Granted: "A number" is indeed a bit better than "several samples", for all the reasons you have given in brilliant detail. But that argument is irrelevant to our work on the revision of the introduction. I know that you know that. You are wasting your time and ours with irrelevant speculation about jellyfish and stars. Though that is a bit amusing; how talented you are with words and ideas. I know that you know better than this, and in time we will get annoyed enough to take action against you with a complaint to the administration. I suspect a pattern of disruptive editing to show your contempt for these mathematical studies and their talented authors. It will all be documented here,and I have the time and patience to build a detailed case, if necessary, detailing, what seems to be emerging as, your pattern of disruptive posts and redactions for unworthy reasons or out of ignorance. Have you read the Rind 1998 study? A careful reading of the text of the study would help you a lot to understand it, and contribute to the introduction of it to Wikipedia readers. Deprecating and denigration this study by inserting words like "a number" as a substitute for the complexity is not presenting the study in a NPOV, in violation of Wikipedia guidance. "A number" is just another way, IMHO, to, perhaps, show open disrespect, contempt, scorn, disdain for the study and its authors, and that is not what we editors, as a consensus, are about here. We want to present the study in a fair and NPOV, in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

Now let's talk shop.

We had full consensus when Truthwriting's post was made. Flyer specifically agreed with Truthinwriting on December 25th. She specifically wrote: "So, yes, '58 independent samples of college students containing data on over 15,000 individuals' works for me too." You even conceded to this edit yourself, and I thanked you for your concession. I assumed with that we had all agreed, after lengthy and protracted discussion of simple matters, to the changes itemized in items (1) thru (4) that Truthing writing proposed almost two weeks ago. There was plenty of time to familiarize yourself with this rather simple matters. The 1997 study, by contrast, was not controversial, but interesting because it included representative samples from Spain, Great Britain, and Canada and had results similar to the controversial 1998 study. Including a little detail about the 1997 study is not valorizing. We are now discussing TruthinWritings point # (5). See the TALK page. You are welcome to join the discussion, and make constructive contributions.

I'm thinking that we should add that there were 36 published studies, 21 unpublished doctoral dissertations, and 2 unpublished master's theses included the 1998 meta-analysis. What do you think? :::Truthinwriting had summarized information in the most controversial effect size calculation. I have underlined that information below. We think we need to put still more detail and information about samples into this introduction to give the reader a better idea of what this study is about. This is not valorizing. We are discussing how much of this we could summarize for the reader, and still make it accessible. If you want to compromise, we would like to start with this information here from Rind, and move towards the middle. What do you think? The (59) studies meta-analyzed in the Rind 1998 yielded

• 70 independent samples for estimating prevalence rates,
• 54 independent samples for computing 54 sample-level and 214 symptom-level effect sizes,
• 21 independent samples that provided retrospectively recalled reaction data,
• 10 independent samples that provided data on current reflections, and
• 11 independent samples that provided data on self-reported effects.
• Prevalence rates were based on 35,703 participants (13,704 men and 21,999 women).
• Effect size data for psychological correlates were based on 15,824 participants (3,254 men from 18 SAMPLES and 12,570 women from 40 Samples). (This calculation is summarized in the first paragraph, as the result of this calculation may have been the most controversial.)
• Reaction and self-reported effects data were based on 3,136 participants (783 men from 13 samples and 2,353 women from 14 samples)." Let's work together towards the middle.

Do you think you can make some of this text and sample numbers more intelligible for the reader? We'd like to see what you can do in a constructive way for the article. If you would read the study first, you would save me a lot of typing to explain all this to you. If you want the right to edit the introduction, you have the responsibility to inform yourself with study of the text.

When Rind and Tromovitch 1997 worked with 10 nationally representative samples, that means that the population of interest is the entire population of the country in question and that the "several samples" reflect this in their structure. The related 1997 meta-analysis by Rind and Tromovitch in the Journal of Sex Research examined 10 independent samples designed to be nationally representative, based on data from more than 8,500 participants. Four of the seven included studies came from the United States, but one study each came from Great Britain, Canada, and Spain. At its best then the nationally representative sample will “look like” the population of those countries, irrespective of how it is viewed by the statistician. The numbers of men vs. women will match the national proportions, the percentage in each age group or each region will exactly match the population etc. On non-demographic measures the sample should match the population. To achieve this, textbook theory requires a large random sample and a high response rate to minimize systematic error and reduce the risk of unsystematic error resulting from bias. This has nothing to do with valorizing the 1997 study. Please! Give us a break! Would you please use your skill with words and help us come up with a mutually agreeable summary of this paragraph? For reference please also read Rind and Tromovitch 1997.After you have done your homework, we will be much more receptive to your contributions, because they weill be better informed. How can we integarte these ideas so that others do not think we are "valorizing" these study? But we don't want readers to suspect that former editors were belittling, disparaging, or denigrating the value of these studies either. Some of that has to be taken out, wouldn't you agree?

Herostratus: If you want to compromise, let's negotiate from the mathematical information on this page. This above is the starting position. Let's now move towards the middle and compromise on what the text in the article might be.

Working with nationally representative samples has nothing to do with valorizing Rind and Tromovitch's 1997 study. If you had inquired about nationally representative samples, I would have explained it here to you, as I have done here above. Please ask first before you redact our work. We strive very hard to be NPOV, not valorizing, but not showing contempt for the value and worth of the studies either. We appreciate your working together with us as a team, but I expect you to add energy and contributions to the Rind page. Your cooperation and your good will are valued here if accompanied by the appropriate NPOV attitude. Otherwise, I would prefer that you stay away, as your work feels to me disruptive and mean spirited and disrespectful towards the topic, towards the authors of the meta-analysis, and to our efforts at consensus making. You work cloaked in beautiful sugary, but irrelevant, words here. You know that I know that you know that I have your "number". I look forward to your constructive contributions to the topic. Please read the Rind 1998 paper, so you can better help to edit, introduce, and summarize it. Or wait with your fireworks until we get to the "controversy part." But that also must be done in NPOV. And alternative might be to get another NPOV editor from the Pedophile Article Watch to keep an eye on our work. Thank you. Radvo (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition to discussing the numbers, your redactions, your gross oversimplifcation of the samples (see my list detailing the wonderful complexity of the samples above), your perseveration with "the numbers of" edit, it would be helpful to the editors of the Rind et al. controversy topic, if we could have an attitude check. We'd like to know where you are coming from. What is your attitude towards the Rind et al. studies. the 2005 Heather Ulrich et al replication of the 1998 study, the controversy esp. from the Spring of 1999 thru 2002? Are you satisfied with the current Wikipedia article, as it now stands? Knowing what your attitudes are would help put your redactions and perseveration with simple word edits in perspective. Maybe you are not the right fit for this work. Maybe there is another editor from the Pedophila Article Watch who could work with us more productively. I wish you well. Radvo (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. I just don't agree. I'll respond to your long post in more detail later on as time permits. Herostratus (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Genghis Khan and probable year

I changed WP:DATE because the Genghis Khan example had become twisted after the article on him became a football pitch and his birth year changed back and forth. I guess it seemed to make sense for DrKiernan to change the MoS example to match the article, but the example was never meant to illustrate a probable year that had some doubtful other choices (a somewhat rare case), but an approximate year (a more common case). There was never discussion about an example for a probable year, and DrKiernan didn't see a need for such, he just wanted the Genghis Khan example to match the article. The example also runs contrary to what we find further down in WP:DATE - "To indicate around, approximately, or about, the unitalicised abbreviation c. is preferred over circa, ca, ca., approximately, or approx., and should be spaced (c. 1291). Do not use a question mark for this function (1291?)". So now one article where the question mark is used contrary to the MoS has become an example; this is confusing, at best. Let's take out Genghis, until some editor or group of editors figures out how a "probable year" case should be formatted, and whether there are enough cases that an example in the MoS is desired. I suggested "Genghis Khan (1162 [probably] – August 1227) ...", but DrKiernan didn't salute it. Chris the speller ^yack 15:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think the fine points about the question mark are likely to be understood by you, me, DrKiernan, and not many other editors. Providing a question mark in the examples is liable to be seized upon by lazy editors who won't go far out of their way to provide a more useful explanation. We apparently did not need such an example before the Genghis Khan article was changed in August, and I think we still don't need one; the question mark was deprecated long ago, probably by consensus, so it should only be reintroduced by consensus. If you still think it is needed I will bring it up on WT:DATE. Chris the speller ^yack 02:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Blind Domna article seems to have been handled pretty well, under the circumstances. I think I'll nix the Genghis example now. Thanks for your thoughts and cooperation. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 03:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy Patrol

Do you happen to know how you can become a policy patroller. I visited the page Wikipedia: Policy Patrol and it didn't really tell me that much. I want to get involved with other Wikipedia activities too. CPGirlAJ (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that page seems to be inactive. Well, if you're interested in policy, you could read up on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. At the bottom of that there's a list of policies. You could add some of them to your watchlist. (You do this by going to the page and clicking the little "star" tab; then whenever you click on "my watchlist" it will show changes to your watchlist pages. Help:Watching pages explains this in excruciating detail. Then, if there are changes to the policies, you can contribute to the discussions about that. Of course, it's a good idea to just read these and watch the discussions for a while also.

Even better (in my opinion) is to watch the dashboard. Here is the link, you can put on your userpage if you want: Dashboard. There are just all kinds of notice boards there, with people wanting help, advice, and input. Herostratus (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of Cracker Barrel article

Thank you for taking time to check and report the results in this edit: diff-716. I had not even imagined that people could create rewrite-drafts that other editors post for them. Your report was so well-written and succinct, for a talk message, that I was amazed at the wording, mixing detail with just enough humor to retain reader interest in the concepts. You stated a lot of issues to address there. Of course, WP:LEDE advises editors to list "prominent controversies" in the intro section of an article, not bury them like stale crackers 20 sections down. Meanwhile, I wish WP had a system of "wikicash" barnstars that could be awarded to editors who spend time to investigate problems, such as COI-edits. It is difficult to get non-paid editors to take time to "correct" articles written by people being paid "for their trouble". I envision "wikicash" as also transferable away to other editors, in the case of wealthy editors who do not need real cash, but convertable to currency for editors who wish to "cash out" when they accumulate enough kudos for spending their time solving all the other problems. Perhaps that is a type of system that Jimbo would enjoy designing, as a "finance expert", to apportion a fund of "wikicash" to be rewarded as bonuses for helpful editors. Initially, it could be awarded just for investigating paid-editors, although at a modest level of minimal cash, to deter schemes of inventing "paid editors" to earn rewards. Anyway, thank you for taking time to craft that COI analysis. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

User: Herostratus/List of Katy Perry songs

When can we publish the article? It is almost done and I am going to add the album The Matrix in there to. I was wondering if you could help so we can get this album done really fast. Oh, and I had an idea, if we could just copy and paste the entire article to List of Katy Perry songs instead of moving it, just in case they delete it. Could you maybe add a infobox to the article? CPGirlAJ (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll look at it within the next couple of days. Herostratus (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What Should I Do?

Someone has published our article User: Herostratus/List of Katy Perry songs to List of Katy Perry songs without asking us. Now our article is already published and we can't really do anything about it. I bet our article is going to get deleted and we have to start all over again. Is there anything we can do to get the article back? CPGirlAJ (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Just in case, for CPGirlAJ I copied it to User:Herostratus/List of Katy Perry songs backup. But this article is *not* going to go poof...Naraht (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is odd. But he's right, the article is fine and basically finished, so it's safe. Nobody's going to delete it. It's ready for the general public to read and edit. Herostratus (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Katy Perry songs for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Katy Perry songs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Katy Perry songs 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. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Demand for proof or retraction

At the Jimbo Wales user page you state that I am "a paid editor." Usually, this would not be objectionable. There is no WP rule against paid editing. However, on the same user page, and elsewhere, there is a witch-hunt against paid editors, which causes me to seek a distance from this label. Also, as a conflicted editor, I would have to pretty much limit my editing to talk pages. This would greatly limit my freedom on Wikipedia. I must therefore ask you to immediately furnish proof (cancelled checks, transfer slips, contracts, sworn affidavits) that documents that I edit WP for money. Failing this, I demand a formal retraction and unqualified apology in the same venue. Should neither be forthcoming, I will seek resolution through other channels. BsBsBs (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. You wrote "Am I a bad person? I stumbled across this discussion, because I am a paid editor" and I picked up on that. The next sentence is "I was never paid for editing WP" and I didn't pick up on that. It's a large and fast-moving discussion and "paid editor" is usually used in this context as shorthand for "paid editor of Wikipedia". But my mistake, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Herostratus, I feel your attempts to seek out paid editors will simply give POV-pushers another tool to mess with anyone who disagrees with their edits, and contribute to the ugly atmosphere that already exists here. Please reconsider this approach. →StaniStani  22:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by ugly atmosphere? Do you mean attack articles, or what? Herostratus (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Presently common accusations against opponents in the POV wars here at Wikipedia include accusations of being SPAs and sockpuppets—if your efforts to create a group of 'like-minded' editors to hunt down and expose paid editors gain steam, you will hand a new tool to edit-warriors they will use to defame people. 'Since you disagree with my attack on this organization, you show every sign of being a paid editor—so get out the pitchforks and torches, me hearties!' →StaniStani