User talk:Epeefleche: Difference between revisions

This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Archives

(6/07-8/09)

This user is a participant in WikiProject Albums.

This user is a member of WikiProject Lacrosse.

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Please persevere through all the drama surrounding The Shells article and Rjanag. I believe such drama drives many good editors away, and I don't want it to happen to you. You do good work and I appreciate it. - Draeco (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For your your valiant efforts to defend The Shells (folk band) article with your reasoned arguments and perseverance, and for taking conflicts in your stride and continuing undeterred with your good work as a Wikipedia editor. Illegitimi non carborundum. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With heavy heart, I have reported Rjanag at the ANI here based on what I believe was grossly uncivil behavior during the Shells affair. It is neither a personal attack against him nor a favor to you, but his behavior compelled me to act. As an involved party I think you should know. - Draeco (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your note. My heart too has grown heavier the more the relationship between the nom and the closing admin reveals itself.

As you know, now that that ANI has closed, I've opened up this Rjanag arbitration. Quick question as to your comment there. You indicated that you don't recommend de-sysopping as he didn't abuse admin privileges. My reading of WP:ADMIN, as I quoted it there, was that de-sysopping is one possible appropriate treatment of an admin who displays consistently or egregiously poor judgment, or who seriously, or repeatedly, acts in a problematic manner or has lost the trust or confidence of the community, including repeated/consistent poor judgment, breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring), "bad faith" adminship (gross breach of trust), and conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship. Did I miss something (in which case I should amend my request), or do you read it differently? Or perhaps just have a more lenient approach than WP:ADMIN? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be too little too late, but I have left you a message with my apologies at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Rjanag. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm saddened that you did not do so many weeks earlier. But only after being completely unrepentant through dozens of requests/incidents involving me and others, an AN/I, an arb request being filed, evidence pouring forth regarding your extraordinarily close relationship with the closing admin, and arb voters indicating that they do not agree with your pooh-poohing of the matter. And even yesterday you were saying you do not need to apologize. It certainly makes it look as though rather than being heartfelt, this has more to do with your desire to avoid the scrutiny of an arbitration.

Finally, on further inspection, your "apology" is barely an apology at all -- as you fail to admit and to apologize for your persistent incivility, untruthful statements, bullying, wikihounding, gaming the system, edit warring, and knowing COI. Further inspection also reveals that your behavior spreads over a number of matters, and impacts a number of editors. They deserve better. My full comments can be found at Rjanag Arbitration. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I participated in the first Shells AfD in question. AfD is a frequent stomping ground of mine, and I find it extremely common to see articles like The Shells to be put up for AfD, and just as common to see them deleted as a result of them not satisfying the basic notability and sourcing requirements of WP. Sometimes creators/editors who fail to accept that. There is occasionally dogged opposition to a deletion, which you demonstrated to see the article wasn't deleted, leading to bitter fights which may get personal. The Shells AfD was certainly one of those. I believe the tone set by Rjanag in the AfD was not appropriate, effectively winding up people who would have supported the deletion on the merits of the case alone that prevailed eventually. While I applaud you for your tenacious fight to keep the article, I believe that the lesson to be learned would be to strive for improved sourcing and better writing of an article to avoid the common pitfalls which lead to deletion. I have been upset when articles I have contributed significantly were put to AfD, because it's a natural tendency to want to look after one's baby. I know the above from Rjanag is not the unreserved apology you feel you deserve. But hard as it may be, I hope you will not take the deletion too personally. Perhaps one day, The Shells will be a notable band... I hope you will stay around for when that happens. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We can have different views as to the AfD merits. We're not alone--just look at the votes at the two AfDs. That's fair. And needn't be uncivil. I've created nearly 200 articles in my years here, and made more than a few thousand edits, so I have a bit of a sense for notability.

I credit you, however, for agreeing with those of us who believe that the tone set by Rjanag in the AfDs was not appropriate. Not many have crossed the aisle, stood up, and made themselves heard on that point.

Also, his misconduct included misstatements. That does not lead IMHO to the best decision-making by those who are trying to make a decision based on facts, not misstatements.

Many editors noticed his misconduct. At least 20 discussed it with him in the past few months, with communications ranging from complaints to warnings to AN/Is. Those 20 editors from what I can tell are essentially unrelated--joined only by their common concern over his misconduct.

As to the "ownership" point, I don't get the sense that Draeco brought the Shells AN/I, or that the other editors spoke up about the conduct that led to the Shells and the other AN/Is, because of "ownership" issues. Quite the opposite. Rather, they think as I do that misconduct is bad, they care about this project, and they believe that misconduct of this sort adversely impacts the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I sympathise. With all your experience, he still managed to wind you up. In my previous dealings with him, he's been pretty no-nonsense, occasionally blunt; he's never been abusive, but one can sense what lurks below the surface. I don't know what's got into him. I'll make a mental note but I'd rather not have to spend time looking into it for now. Happy editing! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not every day I see an admin write one editor: "You can go f_ck yourself" [letter redacted], use the same choice words to another editor, and also write "if you bring them to ANI … you will get bitch-slapped so fast it'll make your head spin … You f_cking moron”. [letter redacted]--Epeefleche (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't. Whoever let the lord of the jungle out? ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 18:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		I award Epeefleche the special barnstar for his work on Nidal Malik Hasan's article and for defending the article from POV motivated edits.--Gilisa (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Great job in updating Anwar al-Awlaki article. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		...is awarded to Epeefleche for major clean-up above and beyond the call of duty on the Inner Temple Library article. Well done! The article will likely survive AfD thanks to you and your addition of quite a few references, among other things! Even an 1897 New York Times article!!!! Fantastic! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some terrific work there on Aafia Siddiqui Bachcell (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work on Aafia, It's more factual now!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just a quick note: Great job editing the article. It now looks complete. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your advice, I've rolled back my own edit. That aside, please respond to me instead of blanking this message. I have been civil with you, why can't you return the favor and discuss this with me?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have checked the history of this page, and for failing to do so, and assuming bad faith, I apologize. It is fine if you remove this message of course, now that I know. Again, I am sorry. I hope you can forgive me. I understand the need to not have clutter, I just wish that I was so insistent upon it that I could manage to clean my room. I'm actually considering a wikibreak because-(this will continue in email, if you don't mind). I'm experiencing too much stress. I'm even considering changing my 'oppose' to a 'support' regarding the interaction ban with Mb. I don't want there to be an indef ban, but considering things, and .. other things, I may just resolve to, instead of reverting their edits, responding to them, instead, I will simply report the edits to the admin who placed the original 24 hour ban, and let them decide for themselves. If this user continues to personally attack others, then they will get sanctioned.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fiftytwo thirty has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

This cookie is for coming back so nicely to my somewhat harsh message. Thank you. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your Wikignome-like edits. What do you think, substantively? Bearian (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzling over why the article is up for AfD, frankly. Does the nom dislike you? I'm just poking around the article for the moment and looking at the sources, and curious what others have to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell from my comments at the AfD, I found Greg L’s analysis somewhat short of what I think you are entitled to when someone reviews your article at an AfD, and suggests deletion of your article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I was very impressed by your rebuttal to an administrator that wrote, "[a certain sysop] is an admin ... I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or [judgment] of the project's mores, I'll be backing [the sysop]." -- Rico 03:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For helping to save Eric Ely from sure deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be everywhere. Thanks for the minor edits. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the GA. Here are my suggestions for conversion in June:--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Scheyer
Scheyer vs. Long Beach State (December 29, 2009)
College	Duke
Conference	ACC
Sport	Basketball
Position	Guard
Jersey #	30
Class	Senior
Major	History
Nickname	The "Jewish Jordan"[1][2]
Career	2006–10
Height	6 ft 5 in (1.96 m)
Weight	190 lb (86 kg)
Nationality	American
Born	(1987-08-24) August 24, 1987 (age 37) Northbrook, Illinois
High school	Glenbrook North High School, Northbrook, Illinois
Career highlights
Awards
Honors
2006 Illinois Mr. Basketball 2006 All-American (McDonald's, Jordan, PARADE) 2x Duke team captain 2x All-ACC Tournament First Team (2009 & 2010) 2009 ACC tournament MVP 2009 ACC Academic Honor Roll 2009–10 All-ACC First Team 2010 Consensus All-American (second team); 1st team: Lowe’s Senior First Team and Wooden (10-man team); 2nd team: AP, NABC, TSN, USBWA; 3rd team: FOX, YS[3] 2010 Award lists: Robertson (Top-16 finalist), Wooden (Top-10 finalist), Naismith (Top-30 midseason), Cousy (Top-6 finalist), Lowe's Senior CLASS (Top-10 finalist) ACC single-season minutes record (1,470; 2009–10) 2010 NCAA Championship 2009–10 ACC statistical champion (free throw percentage, three point shot/game, assist/turnover)

Jonathan James "Jon" Scheyer (born August 24, 1987, in Northbrook, Illinois) is an All-American 6' 5" guard, who was selected by the XXX with the Xth overall selection in the 2010 NBA Draft. He led his high school team to an Illinois state basketball championship and the 2009–10 Duke Blue Devils to the 2010 NCAA Basketball Championship. He was a prolific high school scorer who earned numerous individual statistical championships in Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) play, ranging from free throw percentage and three point shots/game to assists/turnover ratio.

A high school All-American, he once scored 21 points in a game's final 75 seconds of play in an attempt to spark a comeback. The 4th-leading scorer in Illinois high school history, he led his team to a state championship in 2005 and was named Illinois Mr. Basketball in 2006. He chose Duke, for whom he moved over from shooting guard to point guard towards the end of the 2008–09 season, and was the Most Valuable Player (MVP) of the 2009 ACC Men's Basketball Tournament.^[4]

In his senior year in 2009–10 as Duke's captain, he led the team to ACC regular season and Tournament championships and to the NCAA National Championship. He led the championship team in points per game, assists, free throw percentage, and steals per game.^[5] Scheyer was a 2010 consensus All-American (Second Team), a unanimous 2009–10 All-ACC First Team selection, and was named to the 2010 ACC All-Tournament First Team.^[6][7][8][9] He played the most consecutive games in Duke history (144), and holds the ACC single-season record for minutes (1,470 in 2009–10) and the Duke freshman free throw record (115), shares the Duke record for points off the bench in a game (27).^[10]

Scheyer was drafted by the XXX with the Xth pick of the X round (Xth overall, if 2nd round) of the 2010 NBA Draft. If there was a trade to get the pick to select him mention it here. (He is represented by XXX if he has a famous agent like Rob Pelinka or something).

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks

This user helped promote Jon Scheyer to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been doing incredible work on this article and I wanted to make it clear how much I appreciate your work on it. You've been prolific in editing the article, and adding in relevant information, and while I've followed this story myself, in all of your edits I've not disagreed with you once (maybe I missed something... or maybe I thought the police commissioner should be facing the other direction....). Thank you, and please keep up the good work. I'll try to help as much as I can. Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never given out a barnstar. But I imagine Jimbo deserves one for this.[2][3][4]

Can anyone suggest which template I might consider using? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interested to know the reasons for replacing 'Passengers' with 'Activists' on the Gaza flotilla raid. [5]. The change does not seem very Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Firefishy (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger is a "set" used to distinguish between crew member and others who are not crew members. But it is less descriptive of the role of the people and their purpose than is the term activist. Most passengers are not activists, and it is not the activity that the term passenger brings to mind. But here the purpose of the activity was one of activism. The preferred approach is to use the most descriptive term that is accurate (we could also use the less descriptive term "people", but wouldn't for the same reason).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you for the explanation. -- Firefishy (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your contributions and thought you might be interested in joining WikiProject Lacrosse. If you are interested in contributing more to Lacrosse related articles you may want to join WikiProject Lacrosse (signup here). --Yarnalgo _talk to me 17:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just indeffed Tom for disruptive editing per your report. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. One down; it's a start.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you just answered a concern for a user over on the wikiquette alert page. Could I impose on you to take a look at my entry and advise accordingly? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Got your thoughtful response and I thought I should thank you here as well. I'll do what you suggest right away. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- φ OnePt618Talk φ has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating! Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Seriously, you made my day. Thanks and I hope we can cross paths on here again soon!-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 06:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For turning this into this. Fences&Windows 13:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding Sam Stoller to the list. He was an NCAA sprint champion and a remarkable man. Cbl62 (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox does allow for up to six statistics, but those should be used in only the instances of players with records of some sort. This was discussed.--Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a conversation that has been had for years. I see a number of the usual participants didn't see or take part in this one. I've just added my thoughts. I think your original comment was spot on -- I remember the days well of only batting average being mentioned in print or TV, but those are long gone. No harm will come from allowing editor discretion. It is retrograde to suggest that BA should be reflected, and OBP or SP or OPS not.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a small world. Your DYK link for Cordoba House led me to the December, 2009, Times article--your source for the phrase, "its location was a selling point for the Muslims who bought the land." Although I don't recognize the building at all from the pictures, I shopped there when it was being operated by Sy Syms. I still have a couple of his coat hangers from that single trip in the early 1980s.

Curiously, Syms died last year, just about the time that Abdul Rauf was announcing his plans for Cordoba House--I don't think that was the cause.--Komowkwa (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Blake J. Robbins v. Lower Merion School District‎. Blue Rasberry 04:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand why you keep putting his place of birth in the lifespan brackets. It does not belong there. Can you please explain your edits, because your edit summary is not sufficient. So what if he competed for the United States? The actual place of his birth (Detroit, Michigan) is not particularly notable - in fact, considering that he did compete for the US, that makes it not particularly notable. If he competed for another country, then maybe it would be worth mentioning, or if he was born somewhere else... but an American competitor being born in the United States is nothing notable. Canadian Paul 14:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got your "will reply soon" email almost a month and a half ago... I think that's more than a reasonable amount of time to wait for a response... Canadian Paul 05:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nice work Decora (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...with the sourcing of Targeted killing as per that conversation at WP:RS/N, let me know. Bigger digger (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a kind, generous, offer! Of course -- feel free (if you think it would be helpful). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't quite make it today, got a bit side tracked. But you really need to stop fanning the flames that PBS feeds on. There's no need to return repeatedly to the RFC, which will close in its own good time. The conversation at the reliable sources noticeboard could've been wrapped up quite quickly if you'd have said "ok, here are some page numbers". Or ignored it. You would have had to add the page numbers eventually (I figure if you didn't he would add dated fact tags and use that as justification to delete the info after a week), so why not just play his game? He's going to make you play it anyway so you should play in the easiest manner you can. The rules are skewed massively in your favour, and he must enjoy all the pointless forum shopping and pointless debating. Say your piece, do what's necessary, and let time take its course, as we all know there's no deadline! Sorry if this is a bit teaching you how to suck lemons, but I think for your own wiki-sanity it might need saying! And sorry not to reply to your email, but I don't have a suitably anonymous email address set up and don't think it necessary. Best, Bigger digger (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I have noticed your comments about this editor in a few places, including Scottmac's talk page. You might have noticed mine as well: [6], on the Ed Miliband talk page, the Geim page, and [7] here. RFC/U requires that two editors have raised concerns with the user directly, on his talk page. I have already done that (the first link above, which he simply deleted). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- As Scott had been intensely involved with both the AN and the Geim page, I thought it would be quite appropriate to afford him the ability to take appropriate admin action. Unless he was too involved already as an editor, as may be the case (though he seemed to be involved in pleading Off2's case (as an editor), which likely would have allowed him to take some action). Scott has not responded. At the very least, especially given Scott's silence, I thought I should give Off2 the opportunity to consider my concerns with his behavior (whether or not I pursue an RFC/U ... which, as it turns out, is something that Scott has mentioned as a possibility as well). So I've just left word for Off2 as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not taken any admin action as regards Rob. And I have not "pled his case" either. I archived a thread because I believed that the voluntary agreement covered the most pertinent points. Others were free to disagree with that, or indeed revert my closure. Closing or opening a thread is not an admin action, and if I'd been reverted I would not have closed it again - that would be for others to decide either way. As for Robb's actions, I've not examined them at all. However, it might be best to ask some neutral editor to do that. Generally raising behaviour questions once you are in a content dispute (and particularly one as vexed as categorising BLPs by identity) is more difficult. You will not be seen as objective. If you've concerns about my admin actions, feel free to raise them with me, at the moment I'm not sure I've taken any.--Scott Mac 15:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mac -- perhaps I misunderstand RFC/U, but I would have thought that the point is precisely to request comments from neutral observers. True, I would not be perceived as objective about O2RR at this juncture -- so the the point would be to request comment from others who would be perceived as objective. Is this not how it works? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was only suggesting that getting someone uninvolved to mediate might be useful.--Scott Mac 18:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this article! It's developed a lot since I created it a couple of days ago. There's an extra layer of depth now that I wasn't able to provide with just the BBC articles I was using. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking great! I've nominated it to appear on WP:ITN. The discussion is at [8]. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good call, as to ITN--I am unfamiliar with it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 November 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 cargo plane bomb plot, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

-- tariqabjotu 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!!! – Novem Lingvae (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah dude, I'm watching the page views too! Really I just started the article and you took over after the first day. Every time I refresh the page history there's like 20 new edits by you. Good job man! Talk about just diligently reading every newspaper as they put out an article on the issue and incorporating the new facts. I look forward to collaborating on IR articles in the future. :D – Novem Lingvae (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Current Events Barnstar
		For fantastic work on expanding the 2010 cargo plane bomb plot article and helping to get it featured on the front page of Wikipedia. Great job! – Novem Lingvae (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I posted a proposal for a cleaner version of the bio. I'm not sure if you check the talk page (plus it was moved up by a few anon. comments) so I though I'd notify you here. Basically, it compresses redundant info. and puts sources in refs. Like, instead of saying something like "The Forward and RussianInfoCentre and Physics World reported that..." it would say ""Several sources (link to footnotes) reported that..." That way it just seems a lot more professional, and the flow improves significantly.

Please check it out, and make any suggestions if you want. Regards, --Therexbanner (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In concept, it is certainly fine. But it may be that some who are not as quick as you are may need additional assistance.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed it in the text, with your notion and those expressed on the tp by others as the guide. Different working, but same concept and I hope it addresses precisely the point you range.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you gey over yourself and leave living subjects alone, three Christian Grandparents makes him a whole lot not jewish, all the world can see he is a single quarter jew, the size of which is a minor genetic issue. Also if you are unable to discuss like adult and insst on adding silly templates to my talkpage then stay off my talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of the matter seems, with all due respect, to be perhaps on par with your spelling in your above missive. In any event, please respect core wikipedia policies such as verifiability, consensus, and the Project's general distaste for disruptive editing. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to cite verifiability, best to read the sources. The RIC did not say he was Jewish, but "born to a Jewish family". I've corrected the text to reflect the sources accurately.--Scott Mac 14:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This brings to mind a conversation we once had regarding the possibility that you might be tag-teaming with an editor. I'm trying to recall his name. Also with regard to the propriety of you acting both as a sysop on an article and as an editor on the very same article, which raises perhaps questions under wp:admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck? What is this? Are not we all supposed to working for neutral verifiable content accurate to the sources? I saw a dispute between the two of you, and rather than jump in with blocks and templates I thought the best way to settle was to examine the sources. What's your problem with that?--Scott Mac 14:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, I would appreciate it if you would make an effort to find some other language to express yourself. Children view this page at times. It's a robust language, and in it you may well find similarly satisfactory expressions that they would find perhaps slightly less offensive. As to the substance of what I am saying, I assume your understanding of my comment is such that I need not provide diffs, and discussions of Arb Committee applications of wp:admin, and reference prior AN closes, and the like. This isn't an AN/I or an arbitration -- we're simply seeking to communicate with each other. So I imagine further explication is not necessary here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the material to reflect the given sources more accurately. The previous version seriously misrepresented the sources. Would you rather I had left the inaccurate version?--Scott Mac 16:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring your rather energetic exaggeration, I'll limit myself to suggesting that the beginning of your answers lie in WP:ADMIN and the arb cases decided applying the relevant principle.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've no idea what you are on about. If you think I've misread the sources let me know. Otherwise, I think I'll just let it go.--Scott Mac 18:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to continue to edit here, you need to both understand the letter and spirit of the biographies of living people policy and accept it. If you continue to disrupt article talk pages arguing the consensus can override BLP, I will open a user conduct RfC on your behavior. Yworo (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Your comment is absurd. OK, first of all let me warn you for a wholly inappropriate warning. Take that, given the inappropriateness, as a final warning. Level 11. It goes to 11. Second, there is nothing at all disruptive in what I have done. If you think there is, I urge you to bring it to a noticeboard immediately, and submit yourself to sanction if your bullying inappropriate warning is found to be absurd. Third, you don't display in your comment a firm grasp of what a talk page is used for. Fourth, you don't display a firm grasp of the importance of consensus. Fifth, you don't display a firm grasp of BLP vs. wp:cat. Sixth, you don't display a firm grasp of the proper use of warnings. Seventh, of civility. Eighth, you appear to be trying to threaten me with sanctions for expressing a legitimate view which -- quite frankly -- IMHO is more legitimate than your view. I urge you to bring this to a noticeboard, as I would be happy to have the community comment on what I view as your less than appropriate behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbing about consensus as if you knew what it meant is pointless as consensus can never override BLP. Yworo (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Others' understanding of BLP can always override your understanding of BLP. And please desist with your incivility. Again, I urge you to make your threatened report, and submit yourself to scrutiny by the community at the same time.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been scrutinized before and am not afraid of it as I've done nothing wrong. Yworo (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then please make the threatened report. Your threat was inappropriate. Your incivility is not appropriate. Your personal attacks are not appropriate. IMHO. You've made your threat, and I've invited you to follow through on it so that the community can provide you feedback on whether it was appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get around to it; however, I made no personal attacks, nor was I uncivil. I merely told you that I thought your behavior was disruptive to Wikipedia. And I believe that in good faith. I'm not the only one to think that. You are always welcome to discontinue the disruptive behavior. Yworo (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have starkly different opinions of the appropriateness of your behavior. And mine. I look forward to you making your threatened report, as I have been unable to explain satisfactorily to you why your threat was not appropriate. I would hope that community input would better clarify to you why your baseless threat, your incivility, and your personal attack are not appropriate. Please let me know when you have subjected your behavior to that scrutiny, as I would be happy to participate in the discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to provide a diff of the alleged personal attack. In fact, if you really think I've been incivil and attacked you, please take it to the Wikiquette noticeboard. It may be a while before I get around to opening an RfC/U. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah. I see. Not only was your threat not appropriate. It was pure, empty, impotent bluster, when you considered that it would lead to a review not only of the fact that it was wholly without merit-less, but also to a review of your behavior, as evidenced in this string. I would urge you to desist in baseless threats, personal attacks, and incivility. Please take this as a final warning with regard to such behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you've still not substantiated your baseless accusations, same to you. I will file the RfC/U if your inappropriate behaviour continues. Yworo (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my above comments. Res ipsa loquitur. Given your behavior on this page, I ask you not to make entries on it in the future, other than to alert me to any reports relating to me. Have a great week.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I don't think they will succeed but it's good to know they're planning it. Did you let Jayjg know as well?Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No -- only you. Jayjg and I have made complaints about each other at AN/I. To put it delicately, he is not really an editor I choose to converse with.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have refused to engage me in discussion on your talk page and deleted the discussion I attempted to have with you, I have started an ANI thread about your recent canvassing actions. You may want to read and respond at WP:ANI#Canvassing by User:Epeefleche. SnottyWong ^chatter 00:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless. As you know. As is your statement that I "refused to engage" you in conversation. Just the opposite is true.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so next time you delete an entire discussion from your talk page, I should take that as a sign that you'd like to continue that discussion? Yes, you did respond to my comments, although your responses consisted mostly of explanations about why you don't feel the need to explain yourself to me, followed by completely deleting the thread. I don't believe my claims are baseless, and neither do the majority of editors who are currently contributing at the ANI thread. To clarify, I'm not out for blood or anything, but I need to know that you understand that your actions were disruptive, so that you don't repeat them in the future. To this point, I haven't seen any indication that you understand why your actions were disruptive. SnottyWong ^prattle 01:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for epee, but I imagine he doesn't fully understand that his actions were disruptive because there isn't a particle of truth to the assertion which is itself, ironically enough, disruptive. To the extent that you have a point, you've made it. Best to move on. IronDuke 02:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that I'm wrong or that I'm lying when you say "there isn't a particle of truth"? Which part of my accusations are untruthful? SnottyWong ^chat 04:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

im sorry to hear that your article was deleted. i personally disagree that conesnseus was firmly reached but i suppose it is what it is. if you want, i would be willing to work with you if we can get an administrator to place the article in userspace. this strategy was effective in saving the Alan Cabal article a while back even though it was put up for deletion 3x by overzealous deletionusts. get back to me whever u have time User:Smith Jones 01:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Not my article, actually. Just one at which I sought to respond to the nom's issues, by supplying refs to all entries, etc. I'll give your suggestion a think. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for clear canvassing violation. Any admin can lift when Epeefleche demonstrates an understanding that posting 65 messages related to AFDs is case of indiscriminate messaging, especially after it has been demonstrated that he was using off-wiki messaging related to the same AFDs.. 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.

—Kww(talk) 05:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Epeefleche (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

On behalf of Epeefleche, I point out that blocks are not to be used punitatively only preventatively, and no one has made any allegation that Epeefleche was likely in the immediate future to cause any damage or disruption to the project. "Teaching someone a lesson" is not an appropriate reason to block. See WP:BLOCK. I note also that this block was made in knowledge of, and contrary to the consensus of, an ongoing AN:I debate (link). – DustFormsWords (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Epeefleche has a working keyboard, presumably, so he can file his own unblock request when he is ready. Interested community members who wish to request consensus to unblock him can do so at WP:ANI where there is a vigorous discussion on this issue. Please comment at ANI if you wish to see him unblocked. Jayron32 06:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• All editors have an interest in the fair administration of justice, and all editors have an interest in having the absolute minimum of blocks administered necessary for the protection of Wikipedia. As far as I'm aware neither WP:BLOCK nor WP:GAB require than an unblock request come from the blocked user, and requiring Epeefleche to appeal his own block imposes an administrative burden on him that is only justified to the extent that the block is justified to begin with. – DustFormsWords (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Epeefleche (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here

With all due respect, I think this was a decidedly inappropriate block. I'm certain the blocker acted in complete good faith (I can't recall our prior interactions, and therefore have no reason to think otherwise). But I'm puzzled. An AN/I on the same issue had just been opened. This also had the unintended effect of depriving me of the ability to correct mis-statements at the AN/I. Which appear to have misled some editors.

As requested, below is my understanding of the policy and its latest interpretive guidance. Which indicates that in a strikingly parallel situation, a notice to 50 editors was appropriate.

The blocker is correct in implying that a necessary factor, for a posting to be considered "excessive" under the guidance, is a lack of discrimination. But he appears to not perhaps have been aware that the notified editors were in fact picked with discrimination.

This was certainly not a "clear canvassing violation" (the rationale for the block).

I apologize if I in any way created even an appearance of impropriety. That was not my intention. My postings were an effort to do precisely the opposite (to dispel even the faintest suspicion that some—but not all—editors had been contacted). I read wp:canvass and its related talk page guidance carefully before proceeding. I acted strictly in accord with my understanding of them. I am committed to following the guidance, in whatever form it may be written now or in the future.

I respectfully request an unblock, with an edit summary reflecting that it was not appropriate.

Background

1. Concurrent AfDs are discussing deleting 6 lists of Jews. The discussions include related issues. (rules for deleting lists of religions, ethnicities, and nations; whether Jews fall into all 3 categories; the effect of that w/regard to deletions of Jewish lists; who is a Jew; impact of a Jew saying he did not want to be noted for being a Jew; etc.). I !voted keep at all 6 related AfDs. Bulldog, Snotty, and Yworo !voted delete at all 6.

2. Bull asserted at a number of the AfDs–incorrectly–that I had canvassed. His "evidence" was an on-wiki note to DGG, in which I mentioned all 6 AfDs. And the fact that I had mentioned to DustFormsWords off-wiki that he had commented on 1 of 2 co-extensive concurrent AfDs (entertainers and actors). DGG had not !voted. Dust had !voted, split keep and delete, at some AfDs.

3. The editor-response to the Bull accusation was largely negative. See the AfDs.

4. I responded to the Bull accusation. Pointing out I had not canvassed. That his accusations violated wp:agf & wp:civil. And that the only editors other than me to have commented at all 6 AfDs were him, Snotty, and Jayjg—with 17 delete !votes and 1 keep !vote among them.

5. Bull's complaint, if true, would have raised the possibility that keep !voters had been made aware of the related AfDs. But that delete !voters had not. So I also noted that I would

"be happy to leave all editors editing/who edited related AfDs a note about related on-going AfDs".

Nobody objected. I then proceeded as I had suggested.

6. I used a neutral notice.

7. I was discriminating in whom I contacted. Contacting only editors who had commented at 1 of the related AfDs (but fewer than all). I did not contact editors who had commented at the DGG string (inasmuch as there, all AfDs had been mentioned).

8. Noteworthy: Contrary to what an editor intent on "getting out" the keep !vote would do, I did not also (or instead) contact editors who had participated at the prior AfDs of the lists–which had resulted in !keeps. (Unless they participated in this week's AfDs). Despite the fact that it would have been a totally acceptable alternative (or addition) under wp:canvass. And would have resulted in contacting a more keep-heavy group.

9. The editors contacted were not keep-heavy. If anything, the opposite. Nor did the notices result in keep-heavy !votes. Just the opposite.

My understanding of wp:canvass (emphases added)

1. Purpose. wp:canvass is meant to protect against: "canvassing ... with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". This clearly was not such a case.

2. Acceptable notices. Per wp:canvass: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." That was my intent.

3. Note at AfD regarding notifications. As wp:canvass suggests is good practice, I "left a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made". Actually, I did better than that. I left the note before making the notifications.

4. Neutral wording of notice. The notice, as suggested by wp:canvass, was neutrally worded and brief. It did not even say "You are invited to join the discussion at ...", as the guidance's template does. Instead, it was far more neutral. Saying only:

"Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians."

5. Selection of those notified—known opinions. As suggested by wp:canvass,

"The audience [was] not ... selected on the basis of their opinions – for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then similar notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it."

I did not leave messages for users selected on the basis of their opinions. Precisely the opposite.

6. Selection of those notified—connection to topic of discussion. As suggested by wp:canvass, there was no posting of "messages to users ... with no particular connection with the topic of discussion." To the contrary, all users were ones who had edited this week at one or more of the related AfDs. As suggested, the notices were "On the talk pages of individual users ... who have participated in previous discussions on ... closely related topics".

7. What "excessive cross-posting" means under the guidance: Indiscriminate Notification, and Uninvolved Editors. wp:canvass provides that one should not send notices to an "excessively large number" of individual users. Wp:canvass then clarifies what that means, stating the elements that constitute prohibited excessive cross-posting:

Excessive cross-posting

Important discussions sometimes happen at disparate locations in Wikipedia, so editors might be tempted to publicize this discussion by mass-posting to other Wikipedians' talk pages.... indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming" (or e-mail spamming) and therefore disruptive.

There was nothing indiscriminate about the posting here. Those posted to were a highly select group. Specifically, those editors who had posted at one of the related AfDs this week. Nor were they "uninvolved editors". Precisely what the guideline indicates is meant by "excessive" cross-posting–the 2 necessary elements of indiscriminate notification, and uninvolved editors–was not the case here. Rather, the polar opposite was the case.

8. Guidance terminology vs. common parlance. I understand terms can have different meanings in common parlance, from how a guidance instructs us to understand them. "Excessive" is such a term. Had the guidance (and its interpretations) not described its meaning, my initial instinct (without any objective foundation) might well have been that "65" would be "excessive" (in normal parlance). I took care before acting, however, to check what "excessive" means under the precise guidance language. It is indeed a wiki-specific interpretation of the phrase, as reflected above.

9. Footnote. A footnote says "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki." See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK#Principles." To understand what "excessive cross-posting" means, see the above para. Not the case here.

Furthermore, the footnoted case is plainly distinguishable.

The editor there violated the principle of "Aggressive use of Wikipedia forums to mobilize support for point of view". He sent notices that were "calls to action". The opposite was true here. This was a neutral message. Sent to all editors, without regard to their view, who had edited at the related AfDs this week.

In addition, in the footnoted case there was no rationale for why those particular editors were contacted. That distinguishes it. And as the guidance indicates, indiscriminate posting is a core element of "excessive cross-posting".

It is noteworthy that the editor in that case was not even, btw, sanctioned for canvassing. He was only sanctioned for personal attacks.

10. Guidance on wp:canvass talkpage, in parallel matter: 50 notices is in accord with the guideline. In July of this year, a starkly parallel matter arose at the wp:canvass talkpage. An editor complained when editor Collect contacted 50 editors on their talkpages as to an AfD. Collect had used a neutral notice. He sent it "to everyone practicable" who had participated a prior AfD. Collect felt, the same as I did here, that it "avoided any possible cavil that people were "selected" for the message". He relied on the same guideline language discussed above. The feedback on the guidance talkpage by Kotniski (with which nobody disagreed) was that since Collect sent the message to people on both sides of the debate equally, nobody should have any objection. Kotniski added:

If people have contributed to a discussion, they have a right to know if the same issue is being raised again (essentially, if they are not told, then they are being disenfranchised, by having their previously expressed views ignored). If you're going to inform some, you have to inform all, so if it turns out to be a few dozen (quite a large number), that's just slightly unfortunate. The disruption (if any) comes from the people who continually re-raise the same issue when the previous result went against them.

11. Additional guidance on wp:canvass talkpage. The notion that multiple postings (to all RfA !voters) are not excessive if they: a) are not solicitations to !vote; and b) are made to editors who had previously participated in a related discussion, was discussed at the guideline talkpage here.

12. Common sense. Common sense, which accords with the stated purpose of the guidance, suggests that one should not send notices to so many users as to lead to a disruptive influx of opinion. There was no disruption here.

13. Following the guidance. I'm keenly interested in adhering to the strictures of the guidance, now and in the future. Were the guidance changed to say, instead: "Editors should not contact more than X other editors per any AfD, and more than XY editors per a related group of Y AfDs ... even if the notices are even-handed, and made to parties who have been involved in related discussions", I would be happy to follow that new rule. Or any other new guidance.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This block is being very actively discussed at WP:ANI (permalink) and there is, at the very least, no consensus to overturn it. Instead, even after you have posted your overly long unblock request, most editors (including those who I have no reason to assume are or were involved in any dispute with you) agree that both your canvassing and your above attempt to justify it are inappropriate. Under these circumstances, an unblock is not currently indicated. I recommend that you wait until the ANI discussion concludes and then make another unblock request which takes into consideration the outcome of the discussion, and especially the opinions expressed by uninvolved users.  Sandstein  20:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I apologize for not having left comment at the AN/I (the basis for my block). My block prevented me from addressing mis-statements there. To clarify certain matters:

1. On-wiki note. I appreciate blocking sysop Kww having left the following note, after my unblock request:

"I could be persuaded to listen to a defense that claimed that while the original e-mail contacts where wholly inexcusable, the follow-up of 65 postings was an effort to repair the damage. Claiming that both actions were acceptable is a non-starter, though.—Kww"

Yes, my 65 postings were an effort to repair the damage raised by the cloud of suspicion created by Bull's complaint. Had his complaint been true, it would have meant that Keep !voters had been made aware of the related AfDs. But that Delete !voters had not. By contacting all AfD participants, I was eliminating that possibility.

While that addresses the 65 postings, one remaining issue troubles the blocking admin. That issue, which he indicates is the wholly inexcusable clear violation that is the remaining basis for my indef block, is my email contacts.

2. 2 Emails—recipients. The emails, discussed here and at the AN/I, consist of 2 identical emails. They were to DustFormsWords and to Dougweller.

Though I was a straight-Keep !voter at the related AfDs, Dust and Dougweller held views contrary to mine. Dust had !voted both Keep and Delete. Dougweller had only !voted Delete.

The editors were ones who I recognized as thoughtful editors. My purpose in contacting them was—as they had commented at the entertainer AfD, but not the co-extensive actor AfD—to let them know of the existence of the co-extensive AfD. (The emails did not mention the other 4 Jewish list AfDs).

3. 2 Emails—contents. The emails were completely neutral. They said:

Hi. I saw that you commented on a similar AfD, so in the event that it

interest you I'm letting you know of the existence of this AfD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_actors

4. Possible third email. I believe I may have sent the same email to a third editor, but can't recall for sure if that was the case, or who it may have been. Having sent the 2 (or 3) emails through the wiki email feature, where the default is to not retain the email, I have no outbox record to check. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And your motivation for e-mailing at all?—Kww(talk) 19:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed--why not keep wiki stuff on-wiki for transparency's sake? Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why would you have only contacted those two particular users off-wiki, and not all of the editors who "commented on a similar AfD"? SnottyWong ^verbalize 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why them? I noticed they had !voted on the entertainer AfD, but not the co-extensive actor AfD. I recognized them, specifically, as thoughtful editors. I don't recall if there were other editors at the time who fell into both those categories. The purpose was to let them know of the existence of the 1 co-extensive AfD.

Was this an effort to attract 2 Keep !votes? No, as is obvious. They held views contrary to mine. And the notice was eminently neutral. And related only to the 1 co-extensive AfD. Even ignoring wp:agf, these reflect that the purpose of the email was as I indicate.

Why email, and not on-wiki? I could have left the 2 notes on-wiki. They were the neutral mention of 1 related AfD, to a !voter w/a contrary view. Then again, it may have been one of those days in which I awoke to find Betsy rifling through my underwear drawer, Bull nosing through my trash, and Snotty dripping from my faucet—and may have in that moment thought, "why needlessly attract contentious behavior, from editors who I believe have aggressively conflated facts in the past"?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep votes are one thing. Didn't you believe that by encouraging wider discussion of the articles, you increased the chance of the articles being kept? If not, what motivation did you have to notify anyone of the AFDs?—Kww(talk) 20:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're pressing a point that's not that worthwhile, Kww. Believing things should be kept is every editor's right, as is taking actions within community expectations consistent with that belief. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No editor is allowed to make contact with any other editor with the intent of influencing the result of a community discussion. If his intent was to influence the outcome, it's canvassing. "Improving the quality of a discussion", which is specifically allowed by WP:CANVASS, is a fairly credible motivation when it comes to tuning a guideline, figuring out which sources are reliable, a myriad of other things. For an editor that believes that there is an energetic effort to delete lists of Jews to state that his motivation had nothing to do with countering that effort begs credibility.—Kww(talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: No–I certainly didn't believe that by encouraging input from 2 editors with Delete views, with a notice mentioning only the 1 co-extensive actor/entertainer AfD, using a completely neutral note, that I would increase the chance of the article being kept. Even if one chooses to not agf, that would be highly counter-intuitive. My motivation was as aforesaid.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: I did not contact the 2 editors to influence the result in an AfD. It begs credulity, IMHO, to imagine that the 2 neutral emails here, to editors with contrary views, serve that purpose. Even if you do not agf, and simply look at the facts. Just the opposite. If your other point is that I was supportive of the articles being kept, yes–that is accurate. But as to the 6 concurrent AfDs of Jewish lists, I don't think there is much question that the effort to delete them is energetic.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal, but that last bit is a pretty dumb answer. If you knew that on wiki notification would attract controversy, why on earth did you think that email would be any better? My personal approach? Strive to be above reproach and keep all dealings on-wiki, so there can be no questions like these. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons were as aforesaid. I did completely fail to anticipate that my 2 emails, eminently neutral, mentioning in each case the existence of 1 related co-extensive AfD, to 2 editors with views contrary to mine, would be construed by editors acting in accord with wp:agf as a wholly inexcusable clear violation of wp:canvass that warrants my being indefinitely blocked. I was not wise enough to anticipate this, and agree that I was dumb in that respect. Now, I am wiser.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you are wiser now, but I do not believe you were dumb to begin with. How for example should have you known that bulldog has no ability to assume good faith whatsoever?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you have got the message, as you say, and we'll have to AGF that you didn't intend to change the AFD outcome in your favour. But it should be said, since your reply still leaves a little ambiguity as to your understanding: WP:CANVAS states simply an incontrovertibly that "inappropriate notification" includes "Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)". Contacting even one editor off-wiki is inappropriate notification, whoever they are and however the notification is phrased. In addition, we'll again AGF that you thought your 65-editor notification extravaganza was fine; again this breaches the pretty clear guidelines of WP:CANVAS#Spamming and excessive cross-posting: you might have seen these editors as "involved", but that's not a tenable definition and in any case with posting on that scale it wouldn't matter if they were. Rd232 ^talk 21:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rd232 – I've indicated below my continued commitment to the stealth canvassing provision in wp:canvass, regarding attempts to persuade others to join in discussions. As to the "scale" issue, I refer you to my above discussion of it, and in particular to the guidance indicating that 50 such notices was in accord with the guideline. Finally, I think it is evident that the editors were involved in the general issue; that is reflected by the fact that the discussions at the 6 AfDs this week included so many common issues, and common commentators, and the articles were in common categories including common deletion sorting categories.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "50 editors" case involved people who had participated in a previous AFD. That is quite different from people who have participated in similar AFDs. Be under no illusions that you pushed the envelope too far in your interpretation of the policy: it does not permit this. Rd232 ^talk 02:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still completely confused. If your intention wasn't to influence the result of the AfD's (whether pushing them towards keep or ensuring a no consensus close), then what exactly was your intention? Why would you notify users of an AfD, apart from some desire to influence the result of the AfD in some way? SnottyWong ^express 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Snotty–To paraphrase a saying of my father, "sometimes what Peter asks Paul, tells you more about Peter than about Paul." I recognize that some editors see the Project as one in which "winning" is achieved by "getting one's way". Some even lie to that end, or conflate circumstances wildly, as we have seen in this matter. Other editors, and I strive to be one of them, view themselves and their fellow thoughtful and honest editors—of whatever opinion—as judges on an appellate court panel, debating issues energetically in the belief that the collective decision made by such editors will be the best one. To that end, I think it best for the thoughtful/honest editors to know of conversations that may interest them, whether or not they have contrary views, and whether they choose to follow the discourse or not.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to monitor WP:ANI#Epeefleche is at least talking, where I have solicited input as to whether you have met the unblock criterion. I don't believe you have, but I'm willing to listen to counterarguments.—Kww(talk) 21:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche. Do you remember what was in the email you sent DGG; and was DGG !voting keep or delete in other AFD's? Anthony (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I first contacted DGG on his talk page. At the time, he was not involved. After he !voted, I emailed him for reasons unrelated to how one might vote: such as to alert him to alert him to my having quoted him and others having mentioned him in postings (the AfDs were long, and I thought it polite to mention them as he may otherwise have missed them), and to clarify to him the Dust/Doug email (leading to his suggestion that I clarify their nature and number).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that was indeed the nature & timing of the email. I think he did well to send it to me, because I have previously expressed some annoyance at being quoted (by various people) out of context, as the view quoted might not be my view about the current situation. I would much rather be asked first, when I will generally say to please let me express my own view myself at whatever discussion is in question, and give it after I form my own judgment. Of course, I would much rather be asked on-wiki. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The emails were my worry. As I said, the defense Epee made of the 65 is clear and logically valid, (though I can't vouch for soundness, as I've limited experience with WP:CANVAS), so at least the canvassing element of the RFC:U should be a relatively straightforward discussion about interpretation of how many is too many in a given situation. Anthony (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll unblock you on a simpler condition: state that you recognize that contacting other editors via e-mail about AFDs is always inappropriate, based on the "stealth canvassing" language at WP:CANVASS#Inappropriate notification, and you won't do so again.—Kww(talk) 22:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I recognize, and commit to following carefully and completely, wp:canvass, which provides that the following is inappropriate (and may be seen as disruptive): "Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)."--Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are unblocked. I'll assume good faith that your carefully and completely language won't be stretched to find specific reasons not to use talk pages. It's a vanishingly rare situation that there is a reason to discuss an AFD at any location besides the AFD itself.—Kww(talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken the offending words, per your comment. Despite being somewhat perplexed as to why you would ever want me to follow the rule in a less-than-careful manner. Or in a less-than-complete manner.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome back, but to tell you the truth I still have a very difficult time believing and accepting the events of the two last days. It was depressing to watch how an elephant was made out of a fly, and how much time was wasted. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I can only echo what Mbz says, It's good to have you Back. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Good to see that you were unblocked. Obviously, we've never met; I took offense at what I perceived as your unjust treatment during the discussion, and became involved. While I seriously doubt you've seen the end of this ordeal, I hope that the proposed RFC/U discussion turns out for the best. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm glad that you're back, Epee. Rough two days. Now get back to work on those articles! :P Silverseren^C 00:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I just looked at how many "those articles" you wrote, and realized yet another time how different are your contributions and contributions of your self-appointed judges. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Was busy with RL the last few days and was unaware of the hullabaloo. Just read the whole ANI and its just a typical ANI, full of editors that do little on Wikipedia except drama-monger. Thankfully saneness won out. It would be quite unfortunate if we lost an excellent content creator to the silly mobs at ANI.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Let me add to the chorus above in stating that it's great to see you back!--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• And here's another voice in support of your return. Jusdafax 04:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Despite the fact that we disagreed about these AfDs, and have had other serious disagreements in the past, I believe you acted in good faith, and also warmly welcome you back. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

• OK, now I am really jealous.☺Everybody welcomes you back, you are given wiki love and barnstar, and you are so famous! Good for you, Epee! You've got out of your ordeal better off than your self-appointed judges did --Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that consensus is impossible to find when there are too many participants in a discussion. This is not the case at AFD though as this has a simple binary proposition: to delete or not to delete. Examples of such discussions which had 100+ contributors but which still delivered a result include:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle — Keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater — Delete

Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		Wikipedia Motivation Award
		Thanks for your efforts to motivate participation in our discussions. These can become stale and unproductive if we just hear from the usual suspects and so it is good to encourage others to speak up too. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this relates to something else, because otherwise you're thanking someone for breaching WP:CANVAS. Anyway, I'm unwatching now as this seems resolved, but I'll sign off by repeating that what the content issue needed, and still needs, is an RFC on the wider issue. All the best, Rd232 ^talk 11:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you probably wont read this, but I feel that its necesary to point out that its unfair and unreasonable for you to just wade in and try to police how users compliment each other. User:Smith Jones 18:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any policing here either. It is indeed disturbing that Colonel Warden is giving out barnstars for activities that the community deemed disruptive and blocked a user for. That's not what we need around here. I'm also unwatching this page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have absolutely no idea why Colonel Warden, a user in good standing with many hundres of edits, chose to give out this Barnstar. Im also not comfortable with the implication that he needs to be deemed "disruptive" and "have been blocked by the 'community'", but thats your opinion and its perfectly respenstible under here. perhaps it would be better to communitate these concerns to Colonel Warden instead of scurrilously them here where he might not see them. anyway, thats just me, so cheers and happy editing!! User:Smith Jones 19:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um Smith Jones, see the ANI thread; his actions were deemed disruptive, and he was blocked by the community. I have had positive interactions with Epeefleche in the past and I hope (s)he continues to make valuable contributions, but that doesn't excuse canvassing and I'm glad that Epeefleche has agreed to abide by the canvassing guideline in future and thus has been unblocked. I don't think there's any doubt at all that the block was supported by community consensus at ANI, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the award.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I followed the ANI thread and there was clear consensus that the wording of WP:CANVAS is unequivocal, emailing editors to attract their attention to an AfD is canvassing and disruptive. Pinging 65 editors on-wiki for the same purpose was arguably canvassing and disruptive, according to the vague wording of the guideline at the time. (It is definitely canvassing, under the current wording.) Anthony (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tainted AN/I; tainted initial conclusions. The AN/I was tainted. Leading to tainted initial conclusions. The AN/I consisted of "evidence" presented only by accusers and 3rd parties, and not of the accused. No reasonable system works that way. The intemperate block during the pendency of the AN/I ensured this would be the case.

Some accusers asserted untruths, on the basis of which they urged sanctions. Misleading some editors; impacting some initial conclusions. Build a house on sand ... When the blocking admin reviewed my response as to the 65 notices, and presumably the guideline language and the interpretation clarifying that leaving 50 neutral notes comported with the guideline, he sagely dropped his determination that that was canvassing. When the eminently neutral emails sent to 2 editors with contrary views were discussed, it became clear that accusers had spread untruths about them, and that they also did not reflect canvassing.

Any editors inclined to continue the spreading of mis-statements, or creation of misunderstandings, are invited to edit pages other than this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing the attention of editors to an AfD by email, absent extraordinary circumstances, is canvassing. What were the circumstances here that made your emails OK? This is not a facetious question; I just don't understand. Anthony (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:CANVASS does not state that "Drawing the attention of editors to an AfD by email, absent extraordinary circumstances, is canvassing." it says that it's "discouraged" not banned; and that it "may be looked at more negatively" than onWiki communication not that it will be looked at more negatively. For extraordinary circumstances, I would consider the 225 people who watch User:Dougweller 's page[9] and would have also been aware of any onwiki communication and could have affected the AFD's is a sign that neutrality was being considered. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There really needs to be something done around here about the constant rush to lynch people on WP:ANI before all the facts are in. Jtrainor (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• While I would not phrase it in the manner above, I agree with the general sentiment. Jusdafax 05:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Epee really took everything easy, and even thanked the administrator, who blocked them indefinitely. Way to go probably. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey I'm jealous. I never got a falafel☺--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, what do you know,Jiujitsuguy. I got even better present, when I was blocked on Commons for 6 months. The situation was kind of similar the one Epee found themselves in. My unblock was connected to a condition that I should promise never again to say what I said to get blocked, and I could not promise that because what I said was the right thing to say. When I have been blocked for about 3 weeks, one editor started a campaign to have me unblocked, and what a campaign it was! For example he did a photo-montage and uploaded the image to Commons. Of course they deleted it, but not before I saved it to my computer Here it is, this present of mine. And then one fair-minded administrator unblocked me.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just wanted to thank you for the kind remark on my talk page. It appears that the crusade against you is over, for now. Good luck in the future. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I watch all the current Mets players and I must say that the Ike Davis article is the best of the lot, by far. Have you considered taking it perhaps to GA?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick review of the article astonishes me. Well done! I'd be very surprised if it isn't accepted as a GA. I also suggest going for it. Jusdafax 10:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thanks much. OK -- in the New Year I promise to give in to peer pressure and take it to GA. Happy holidays to all.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you seem to be the main editor of List of Jews in sports, I wondered if you'd ever considered creating an article on the topic of Jewish sportspeople? Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality states that:

Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must be at least possible to create one.

Given the existence of the list and of Category:Jewish sportspeople, such an article should be possible (and indeed the introduction to the list hints at some reasons for notbility). Would this be something that you might be interested in working on? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry. It's an interesting thought. But it may be too large a task for me to address at the moment. There certainly is a great deal of interesting material specific to the intersection. At least, interesting to me.

For example, to look at one sport -- fencing -- would if memory serves yield the following interesting narrative. Dueling to the death or to first blood used to be quite common in Europe, and it was in some parts (Hungary, Russia, etc.) considered great sport to wander into the Jewish quarter and challenge a Jew to a duel. Jews were generally not at the time allowed to fence in non-Jewish salles. Unskilled, they faired quite poorly in the duels, which was no doubt part of the attraction. As a result, in Darwinian fashion, the Jews were forced (as a matter of survival) to adapt. Which meant creating their own salles, and developing a proficiency of their own sufficient to defend themselves from random challenges to duels. If one looks at the number of Jewish Olympic medalists in fencing, one sees a presence that appears to far exceed their percentage of the population.

Stories of perhaps lesser interest also exist with regard to other sports, as traced in the recent Jews and Baseball documentary that Dustin Hoffman narrated, which had some interesting views as to how Jewish participation in baseball was a means for Jews to integrate into US society. And in the sport of boxing, more than one writer has noted how when immigrant groups came to the US, their presence was quickly felt in boxing, which proved a quick way to rise from poor immigrant to monied celebrity, albeit at a cost to one's looks (the same held true for the Irish and Italians, when they arrived in the U.S., for example).--Epeefleche (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, something to think about perhaps. Your reply make me think there is more to write about than I originally envisaged when I made the suggestion. Perhaps we could start the article in your userspace somewhere? That way, it wouldn't matter if it took a while to get off the ground. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the evidence I have opened a CCI here and at the associated subpages linked from there. If you would like individual notices of any actions taken with regards to your edits, please say so. Otherwise if you are interested in the investigation please watchlist the pages. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll watchlist it. As I've indicated, I feel that WJE has been wikihounding me for some time now (along with a 2nd editor -- I hope she has enough sense to recuse herself from this). And I think that the uninvolved editor's comments detailing why the "evidence" was not a violation was well put. In addition, I've been fairly diligent, certainly in the last year or two as I gained familiarity with the wp editing process, about sourcing just about every sentence I added to one or more refs (though WJE deleted some at times, citing "ref-bombing"). Thanks for the notice.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche - any help identifying issues would be greatly appreciated and help resolve the CCI sooner. You can see from the history of the CCI page 5 or 6 articles that have already been identified - they all seem to be from early in your editing career. That's not to say there aren't recent issues, but the copying in the early articles seems a lot more pervasivce. Is there any point before which we can reasonably assume that everything was copied? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that the check will provide more precise input that my memory from 3 of 4 or 5 years ago. If memory serves, when I first edited I didn't even know that refs were required (as many wiki articles I looked at didn't have any), or thought that ELs would suffice. I think that within the past 2/3 years I referenced every single sentence, or nearly so, in every text addition I made. And typically relied on multiple references per paragraph, let alone per article. Note -- refs at the bottom of the sentence can cover an entire paragraph. Let me know if you feel there are specific problematic articles, and I will be happy to "fix" any problems.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer notices, let me know, and I'll note that at the CCI. Otherwise, it is not standard practice to notify contributors of specific articles or images when a CCI is opened. They can generate a great many lengthy notices, and the goal is not to embarrass contributors, but to handle issues discretely. Articles in which problems are found are marked with a Y. Several articles have been evaluated and are currently blanked for processing through WP:CP: Gregory Benko, Sid Terris, Jackie Fields and Allen Weiner. These need to be rewritten. Given your length of time on Wikipedia, you may already know that there is a temporary space provided for the rewrites to take place. If not, you can find the link about a third of the way down the template, beginning with the words: "To write a new article without infringing material" --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great. Please just let me know if you would like individual notices. We have only had one CCI subject object to the standard system of handling listings at that subpage. As I said, the lack of notice is intended as a courtesy, but that recent objection has made me aware that not everybody will see it that way. As the person who pretty much devised the system, my thought was to allow good faith contributors who may have inadvertently run into problems to continue contributing while handling these issues with minimal drama. (I don't like drama. :) I think it's best for everybody if we just take care of business and move on.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like a copy of this article put in your userspace so you can include details within 75th Infantry Division (United States) or anywhere else, please do say so, and I'll do it. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind offer. Certainly -- that would be great. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have added a link to this list to lots of articles. The issue I have is that you have piped the link as "List of select foo-ers". What is select about them other than having an article and being identified as Jewish? The inclusion criteria for the list seems to be subjective since it is not specifically defined for each sport. I would certainly say that most of the golfers listed would not meet them, with David Merkow and Rob Oppenheim in particular having done nothing to warrant inclusion by even the loosest possible interpretation of the criteria.

As such, I think these criteria need revisiting. In the meantime, I have removed the word "select" from the golfer bios, and would suggest that you may wish to revisit and do the same for all the others. _wjemather^bigissue 10:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've asked you not to wikihound me. More than once, for nearly a year now. You've done it for some time now, and continue to do it, and continue to ignore my request. Instead, you dismiss my complaint that you are following me around as "random accusations". And "baseless accusastions" -- even as you continue doing it. I would appreciate it if you would stop. Many thanks. Also, please rather than post here, post at relevant article talk pages. Much appreciated.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted at the relevent article talk page, but as a courtesy posted here also. I'll take this opportunity to advise you that it would be better for all if you contributed to discussion constructively rather than employing a battlefield mentality and dismissing others arguments based on a grudge that you refuse to let go of. I have removed your slanderous personal attack from Talk:List of Jews in sports and leave it to you to remove it from here. If you have an opinion on the concerns raised please voice them, but if you cannot do that without snide remarks, then I request you stay away. Otherwise ANI will be my next point of call. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 15:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see anything other than disruptiveness in your following me around wikipedia, and making POINTy edits such as the above-indicated. I've asked you to stop. You have refused, and continue doing so. Wikipedia is large -- surely you can find something else to do, instead of this. It would certainly be more civil. There is nothing personal in my pointing this out -- it relates to your editing, and your following me around for months now. Please stop. As to the gravamen of your "issue", there are sundry lists of "notable x" and "select x" throughout wikipedia, and the entries that you point to all have wikipedia articles. Again -- I ask again -- please stop following me around wikipedia to make these disruptively POINTy comments. I would appreciate it.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I was being pointy in any way I would have stripped the list bare or nominated it for deletion, but instead I have given you the opportunity to have your say. Please use it constructively. This list states that it only includes those with outstanding acheivement (listing some specific criteria) and not all notable individuals as other lists of this kind do. I have raised concerns that those criteria are subjective and cannot reasonably be applied to all sports. I have also queried the inclusion of two specific golfers who would appear to have done nothing outstanding by any measure and certainly do not meet the list's criteria. If you have a genuine opinion on those issues they would be welcome, but your refusal to engage in constructive discussion purely because I raised the issue is not helpful, and your false characterisation of my actions is entirely unwelcome. _wjemather^bigissue 16:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) A year ago you were denying that you were following me around, and editing what I edited. Do you now admit that that is what you are doing? 2) You stripped out the word "select". It is the same in meaning as the word "notable". We have a great number of lists and sections of "Notable X" -- there was no reason for you to delete it. That was disruptive and POINTy. And wrong -- it is not a list of "All X". 3) Please stop following me around and editing over my edits disruptively. This has been going on for nearly a year now, despite your assertions that my "accusations" are "baseless" and "random". It is disruptive to me. I would very much appreciate it if you would stop, as I have requested many times in the past.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't take you long to realise that the majority of my edits relate to golf, so seriously cannot be surprised when these articles pop-up on my watchlist. As far as I know, there are no lists titled "List of select foo" and for good reason – inclusion criteria wold be subjective. Unless the criteria for this list are applied strictly and those not meeting them removed, the criteria need to be changed. _wjemather^bigissue 16:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take look, looking at the above diffs, to realize that you have been following me around. These last questionable edits of yours -- on top of mine, shortly after I make them -- are just the latest. Most of course have had nothing whatsoever to do with golf. Most are on articles that you never, ever edited before. Are you trying to mislead people, and duck my question, with your above response? Do you still seriously deny what you are following me around, and editing over/contrary to my edits, as you denied it a year ago? After all the evidence that has piled on since?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My removal of a single word in these articles was not questionable in the least. There have been and continue to be, to varying degrees of seriousness, numerous different and recurring problems with your editing, so it should not come as a surprise that there are numerous people, including me, monitoring your contributions. For the most part, I intentionally avoid interacting with you because your response is always needlessly aggressive and unpleasant. As always, I will continue to attempt to discuss things calmly and constructively however difficult you insist on making it. _wjemather^bigissue 17:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No -- other than one other editor, I can only think of you having a penchant for wikihounding me. In the above indicated diffs, you denied you were following me, aggressively referring to my assertions as "baseless" and "random". Now, you seem to be owning up to the fact that you were in fact doing what you denied. Your above indicated "removal of a single word" over many articles, directly after I put it in, was both questionable and POINTy, and the poster child of wikhounding editing -- that was completely inappropriate, and I again request that you stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your incessant accusations remain groundless. Hounding is clearly defined on WP, and my action do not fall within it. For information, a draft ANI case is well underway. Be assured that I have much better things to do than collate your transgressions, but am not prepared to tolerate this nonsense any longer. _wjemather^bigissue 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page to discuss any changes. You do not own this list and should not arbitrarily change the criteria to suit yourself and your prior edits. That seems to me to be the very definition of being disruptive to prove a point. _wjemather^bigissue 17:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the talk page. I have discussed the list and its criteria with the other editors of the list as it has developed over the years, and have observed and continue to observe the application of the criteria (which I drafted in part in the past as well), and the changes reflect the consensus application of criteria to the list, as it exists, and as it has been applied for years.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To wjemather: I think your wikihounding of Epeefleche got out of hand quite some time ago. I suggest you just take him off your watch list, or stop looking at his contributions history, or whatever it is you are doing that enables you to so frequently parachute in on his work with comments about how you are displeased with his activities and how Wikipedia’s criteria need revisiting so Epeefleche’s work can better conform to your desires. Contributors are supposed to be able to make their contributions to the project without having their own, private Pit Bull nipping at their heels at every turn. Has it ever occurred to you that you might just (breathlessly) watch what he does and let some other editor raise an issue first, and then you can jump in to second the motion? It’s high time for you back off. You are clearly using Wikipedia as a tool to use in a personal vendetta. With 6,908,993 articles on Wikipedia, you could find a thousand constructive things to do. Instead you obsess over Epeefleche’s work on Jewish lists as if you fancy yourself as the one and only being on this pale blue dot willing to rescue earth from these lists. I suggest you accept the simple fact that if these Jewish lists are something the project doesn’t really need, the community is perfectly capable of dealing with the lists in its own good time. If you don’t wake up and smell the coffee on this free advise and keep at it, I expect that formal remedies will soon arise to separate you two; you may not like the remedy. Greg L (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, really not interested in your opinion. In fact there are very few people on here who's opinion I value less, and I would have thought that was clear to you by now. Needless to say, it is clear you don't have the first clue what you are talking about. If you had posted this crap on my talk page you'd be getting both barrels right about now, but since you have butted in here I'll leave it at that. _wjemather^bigissue 20:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of combative tone is about the best way in the world to show that you are disinterested in working constructively in a collaborative writing environment. It should not have come down to your receiving a 48-hour block 20 minutes ago for you to have seen reason. Greg L (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche: I have posted the Jewish Barnstar on your user page in recognition of all your great work with Jewish-related articles and topics on Wikipedia. Congratulations! You are now also on my "honor roll" at User:IZAK/awards given by IZAK#User:Epeefleche. Best wishes, IZAK (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Juniperus Capital, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Bermuda hedge fund Juniperus Capital was named after the Juniperus bermudiana, Bermudian cedar trees that are extremely hardy in the face of adverse conditions? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have been mentioned regarding this article List of Jews in sports in a thread at the BLP noticeboard here, your comments there would be appreciated , regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche, thanks for watching this article! Cheers.Farhikht (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I didn't realize it is a quote. I just do a quick read on the article and just seems strange to see all caps word. But it's a quote then I agree it should stay. Anyway, I went to this article because I read this ESPN news article about Scheyer. Seeing you as the primary editor on this article, perhaps you would like to add more information about his recovery and his plans for the future from the ESPN news article. Anyway, sorry about my edits, I was acting too fast without checking the reference. — MT (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Cohen (ice hockey)? Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought. Good hockey player, but not IMHO quite notable enough (compared to the others on the list) .... Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links for 4-5 people ... Not everything must be removed. Gradually, all will be. Not all at once. I've been working on an article a few months. We must respect the work of others. I understand the rules, but in other statya ethnic lists, too, there are red links. Талех (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed improper links from most if not all nation lists that did not belong, and will likely address the rest as well. Feel free to move them to your workspace to work on them.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give the weekend I featured links. Please. Right now I can not restore such a huge material removal. Талех (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have been discussing this for a number of days now, and I find myself repeating myself. There is no need for the continued massive violation of wiki guidelines -- simply move the material that you wish to work on to your own user page. Violating the guidelines, and edit warring on top, is not an acceptable approach. Move it to your own page, and work on it as your leisure if you like. Do not continue to enforce wiki violations on article talkpages, however. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that Rockefeller recruited Berg for the OSS? None of the references you cited there say that. Our Moe Berg article says "To do his part for the war effort, Berg accepted a position with Nelson Rockefeller's Office of Inter-American Affairs on January 5, 1942." Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes -- I have spent the last half hour of my life trying to unwind the edit conflict caused by us both working to improve the article at the same time. So it is going in in pieces. What I have reflects a ref that supports that statement -- I'm not in the habit of making material up, for purposes of inputting it in wp, or acting on what my father told me he knew to be the case. When I work through the edit conflict, it should be clear in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I look forward to seeing it, and I'll hold off on the article for the time being. When you do add it in, could you format the citation as a ref, rather than as an in-line external link, since that's the format used throughout the article? Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- I use the non-inline ref first and save it as such, and then subsequently inline via scrip. You simply were kind enough to beat me to the inlining. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah!, so there is method to your madness! Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only on my better days, perhaps ... --Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I notice you've made a series of edits removing redlinks from this page. Do you mind if I revert your edits, temporarily leaving the unreferences redlinks you've removed, in order to work to provide references for those that I can? Many have entries in a single source, Killam & Rowe's Companion to African Literatures. Best, Dsp13 (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's something that you can do right away, as I'm guessing it is if it largely comes from one source, just go for it. If it will take more than a day or two, I would suggest that you copy it to a user page or the talk page, and work on it at your leisure. The guideline is somewhat strict on this, but either way you should be able to address it without too much upset I would think. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ta. I'll userfy as you suggest - but if you could hold off doing more to that page for the moment for a couple of days, it'd be great.Dsp13 (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Nice working with you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is hard to see the wood for the trees. Having now seen Fæ's perspective on that conversation... I can't do anything but see it in a new light. I think I do now see where you are coming from, while there was no intention to push anyone away I basically ended up going into a rant about WP:V :S And I finally see what you mean about removing others work; and while that specific example was unintentional (and probably a reasonable removal) I did just offhanded it as "not part of this discussion" :S Damn. I appreciate you getting me to finally consider this appropriately. (More delicately; I don't want this to come off as a way to appease you, reading Fæ's words has made it click and I will reflect on this.. "enthusiasm"). As I mentioned elsewhere in the RFA my other most active online forum is a community where we spar over ideas/thoughts/proposals and I suppose vestiges of that still exists, even if I miss them. Will work on this. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gabe Carimi, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Gabe Carimi, who is expected to be picked in the first round of the 2011 NFL Draft, fasted for Yom Kippur until an hour before game-time in his freshman year of college? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your additions to Orio Palmer. Cullen328 (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Epeefleche,

I saw you modified some dates over on the List of home run records. I could care less, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything bad. I thought that styling a date as (example) 27 May was equally acceptable as styling it May 27. Have I been wrong in this assumption?

Hi. No worries. You might want to take a glance at the guideline entitled WP:STRONGNAT, which indicates in pertinent part: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day". I would think that records in major league baseball have a strong tie to the US. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor form on my part not signing ... sorry about that. Thanks for the explanation ... I will watch that in the future.

There should be more editors with your kind of good nature. You help make WP a better place to volunteer. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use wikEd on the Firefox browser. Firefox underlines misspellings in red, and wikEd allows the use of JavaScript regular expression syntax to find and correct errors. I have some examples on my /regular subpage. I have many more regular expression scripts, in case you were looking for something special; just ask. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: You would think it would be possible since there used to be a bot that watched the date pages and kept it clean of redlinks (I don't mean that bot-like editor =)). I think the biggest problem would be identifying all of the various list pages that would need to be monitoring, but I imagine that would be surmountable. I don't program bots, but perhaps one of the bot programmers would be interested in making something. Mufka recently asked Pseudomonas if PseudoBot could be resurrected. I would think that the code from PseudoBot could be adapted to look at other pages, but again, I don't program bots, so I have no real idea of the work involved. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I left a query at RF's page. Is there anyone else you think I should ask?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is taking place here.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

right church, wrong pew - I love that; well said.

"Is this the right room for an argument?" hehe.

Gods, I really do hate RfA, sometimes. Always, actually. Chzz  ►  17:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing. Classic. All-too-familiar. Really ... classic.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. There's also a quote from Dr. Strangelove, "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" — which I think should be the motto of AN. Gotta laugh about these things, otherwise we'd go completely insane.  Chzz  ►  16:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an idea--an "AGFN". Modeled on the RSN. Editors there discuss whether another editor has -- by his/her statements/actions -- rebutted the presumption of AgF. Perhaps that would help lower the intensity of the "War Room" discussions. As those editors on the "I've been shown to be not deserving of the assumption" list would have a lesser voice.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Careful now; allegedly, 2000 years ago, a guy was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change.  Chzz  ►  03:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion I have started here. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained at that talk page, I think the time is ripe for a broader discussion on the meta issue. Unequal application of equal rules is, at least in English-speaking Western societies, generally viewed as inappropriate. As IMHO it should be.

That's what prevents cops from sitting on a side road, and only giving tickets to Black people who are driving even 1 mile over the speed limit. While smiling and nodding at the white folk who are doing precisely the same thing.

IMHO, we have to be on guard against editors singling out certain ethnic groups, or religions, or races -- and deleting in toto their articles or lists or cats, for "offenses" that exist in the vast majority of parallel articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've also pointed out on the talk page, I'm not singling out particular groups. I've been consistently focusing on all manner of unsourced ethnic group lists. I would welcome broader discussion on the issue though. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also kindly request that you stop telling me your speeding analogy? I've now heard it more than once (though I appreciate that you can't be expected to remember who you've told it to) and I object to the implication (whether you mean it or not) that I'm a racist just because I want to see unsourced ethnicity lists sorted out. See also my previous comments on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the talkpage. As I said there, I think from what you've said that you are not a racist. But that is not the thrust of the analogy. As I explain on the talkpage, even a non-racist non-across-the-board effort to delete lists of Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, etc., for having characteristics that are the norm on wp in other lists can lead to serious problems. The analogy is important, and not everyone who will read the Hutu talkpage is aware of our prior discussion of the analogy. But hopefully I've clarified sufficiently there that: a) I don't think you are racist; and b) that's not the issue at all, in any event.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the analogy is a bit misplaced in that case. Suggesting that focusing on unsourced ethnicity lists, regardless of the actual ethnicity involved, is akin to stopping only black drivers for speeding seems to introduce an unnecessary potential for confusion to me because it suggests that decisions are being made to target particular ethnicities, when in face I'm focusing on all ethnicity lists. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it apt. Focusing only on deletion of articles and lists and cats and entries of ethnic groups, and not on lists of other groups -- which suffer in the vast majority from the same "issue" -- raises the same issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but following the analogy, ethnic equals black and non-ethnic equals white. That doesn't really make sense. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see things differently. The cop giving out tickets "only to ethnic-looking drivers" raises precisely the same issues. Uneven application of even rules is IMHO a clear problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But everyone has an ethnicity, so "ethnic-looking" doesn't make sense. Surely a clearer analogy would be if the drivers were differentiated by something completely different, such as whether they were driving a car or a truck? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No -- it is disproportionately "ethnic" groups. It is more like someone deleting only lists of Yankees, but not of Red Sox. If an editor does that, and fails to put in any constructive work -- say, writing articles on Yankees, improving them, adding refs, etc -- that should properly raise eyebrows. Also, one has to look at the impact. When there is disproportionate impact on ethnic groups, the fact that an editor has drawn the circle ever so slightly wider doesn't obviate the fact that he can be having disproportionate impact on certain groups. (By analogy, if the cop said "I just gave tickets to anyone who looked dark, whether they were white people with a deep tan or black people", that might be good for a laugh, but not much more). We have to be on special guard against editors seeking to delete articles of groups that have been otherwise discriminated against, and who are protected by all sorts of laws across Western countries and the US, under the guise of uneven application of rules. It would be a horrible precedent, and a well-intentioned editor doing it could easily open up the floodgates for further editing that is disruptive in that it is completely uneven application of the rules.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree on your point about watching for people targeting groups who have been discriminated against. My point about the analogy is that it's a bit confusing when the analogy for ethnic group/non-ethnic group-related articles (i.e. articles about different concepts entirely) is white/black people (a categorisation within the same concept, i.e. race). It would seem that the white/black analogy works better in the case where people are acting differently in relation to articles about one ethnic group compared to another, rather than differently towards all ethnic group articles compared to unrelated articles (unless you understand "ethnic" to apply only to ethnic minorities, which some people seem to do). Anyway, enough! I probably haven't explained myself very well and I don't want to labour the point. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You reverted my removal of the infobox image from White American, citing consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. The discussion there is about the general principle of using such images. My concerns with the image in this particular article are spelled out on its talk page. I didn't remove it for the reasons discussed on the WikiProject but because of concerns about the specific image. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest we bring it up at the wp page, as it is inextricably related to that discussion and many of the comments in that discussion bear on acts such as that deletion. Would you like to raise it there, or prefer that I do so?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a link to the talk page of the article, since the concerns being expressed are about original research in that particular article. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"To torch" is "to set fire to with or as if with a torch". By extension (though, admittedly, it may not be obvious), one might say a deleted article has been "torched". That just happened to the article for which I was de-linking what are now redlinks. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ... so you were just saying "delete"? I saw the deletion, but could not tell from the edit summary what the rationale was for the deletion. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Epeefleche. You have new messages at 4meter4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• You're welcome. Few things piss me off worse than for me or someone else to do substantial work on an article, and then getting the reaction "Big deal, I still hate it". Mandsford 20:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes what Peter tell you about Paul, tells you more about Peter than about Paul.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top of this page, you have {{User wikipedia/autoreviewer|left}} which makes "This user has autopatrolled rights on the left. " :-)  Chzz  ►  20:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tx!--Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For months I've been thinking that was some sort of deliberate witticism that I wasn't quite understanding :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who happen by this page may wish to be on the alert for efforts to hack into their private email accounts.

As happened to one wikipedia editor, as described in short here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly won't start an edit war over that tackle/left tackle baloney, but one question to you: if Carimi plays right tackle in the NFL (which is very likely), are you going to rewrite the first sentence "Carimi is an American left and right tackle"? --bender235 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will rewrite it per the RSs. If he plays right tackle for team x, and that is reflected in the RSs, I will rewrite it "Carimi is an American right tackle for team x".--Epeefleche (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So if he plays both, depending on the formations, it will be "Carimi is an American right tackle and left tackle for team x". Okay. --bender235 (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look. He has played left tackle for the past four years. The RSs call him a left tackle. You just asked "if Carimi plays right tackle in the NFL (which is very likely)" what I would do. I answered your hypo. You now are creating yet another hypo -- which, from what you just said, you view as less likely than the "very likely" first hypo. I'm not sure why. What more do you want from me? How about this -- let me anticipate your next query. If he next year he plays all positions, on both offense and defense, and also manages the team, we'll call him "Carimi, the player-manager for team x". That is -- if that is what the RSs call him. Enough?--Epeefleche (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to ridicule this issue. After all, players play different positions. In the end, it is better to write "XY is a tackle. He played his college football at Z, where he started four years at left tackle", instead of describing the person as "left tackle". --bender235 (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed the issue with you politely at length. You posted it at the project board, and received the same feedback I gave you. You then, after my input and the wikiproject's input, just asked me a hypo -- based on what you termed was "very likely". I politely answered. You then added yet another hypo. Of a situation that is not even a hypo anymore, but a hypo that you consider far from likely. I think you're stringing this out far beyond its useful life -- I would rather focus on real issues, or likely hypos, and not belabor unlikely hypos. On a cost-benefit basis, I'm not seeing how further discussion of unlikely hypos is worth either your time or mine. Maybe you see it differently, but that's my take. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. To try to resolve the "is it an official term" dispute, I've started an RfC for White American. Hopefully we can get some outside input. Please let me know if you think my summary isn't neutral (I tried to keep it short and hopefully people can read our discussion and make their own minds up). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No -- I think you neglected to say "RSs such as The New York Times report that the census measures the category of "white Americans".[ref] That's a key point. Again -- you're not respecting the fact that it is the RSs that we look to. In fact, at the request for comment, you're leaving that out completely. Making a statement as to what the census measures which is OR that conflicts on the key point with your OR of a primary source.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had mentioned that some sources use "white American", but I've tried to make that more explicit and have included a link to the NYT article. If you still disagree with the wording, please feel free to suggest an alternative. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is a quick cut. It gets the issue out there -- 3 RSs, the primary source, the policy.

Is it legitimate to say that "White American" is an official term used by the US government? RSs such as the The Washington Post report that the census is a survey of Americans, and that it reports inter alia on "the typical White American household".[10], and RSs such as The New York Times report that the census reports, inter alia, on "white Americans",[11] and the St. Petersburg Times reports that the Census Bureau studied "White American households".[12] The term used in the census, the primary source, is "White". Some editors believe that in context that means White American, as is supported by the aforementioned RSs. Others disagree. See discussion above for more details and arguments on either side.

--Epeefleche (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That generally looks OK but I think that if we're going to mention three sources that use "white American", we could also mention that there are also those that simply reproduce "White" or use "white people", as I've recently pointed out on the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure -- toss in three of those as well, for balance. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. I apologise if it's still not quite as you'd like it but I was rushing before anyone made a comment (though maybe it's wishful thinking that we'll have a deluge of opinions!). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to tidy it up further before any comments flow in. Also -- I would suggest putting a note linking to it on the guidance.

BTW -- I just realized ... somehow a sentence I crafted for the above is missing (though I referred to it). It should state the rule:

"WP:PRIMARY says, in pertinent part, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."

--Epeefleche (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. I did wonder where the "the policy" part of the summary you mentioned was. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add in as well anything from the guidance that you think relevant which I left out. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm happy with the current wording. Let's see if we get any comments now. Fingers crossed. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've not exactly been inundated, have we? Not a single comment! It's a shame that while the deletion debate generated so much heat, people don't seem interested in improving the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be active there, I thought I'd let you know I've started the review at Talk:Sam Fuld/GA1. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of interest to you on Talk:European American#Proposal to remove infobox images for this page. Greg L (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal with the lower-case g? T. Canens (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's Silver fluoride Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimes its Aufklärungs- und Gefechtsfahrzeug. While for dyslexics, I presume – those people who are at risk apparently of seeing bad in everything – we have wp:AFG.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Just wondering because I've seen some people do "DrV" before which seems to be even more inexplicable to me. Perhaps it's just borrowed from AfD? T. Canens (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh -- so you want a serious answer? Yes ... there's no rhyme or reason. It may make it easier to read or type. Hey ... even major league baseball uses both MLB and mlb ... sometimes in the same line. But no, no deeper meaning. (BTW -- to my RFC-happy friend Larry, who I assume is watching this, if you feel an RFC on this feel free to go ahead as usual .... ;) --Epeefleche (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Highspeedrailguy. Regards,  Frank  |  talk  22:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi if you feel like it please check out the Afd discussion for Emilia Carr. I personally believe in Keep for it.. but I wait for your opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A straw poll has been asked for by User:Staxringold on whether or not season links should be added to lists of baseball teams. I noticed that you contributed to the previous discussion, but have not yet taken part in the straw poll. If you would like to do so, it can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Season wikilinks, under the sub section Straw Poll.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme danger has given you some kittens! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companions forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some kittens, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kittens}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

Kittens think fish are delicious. Phish, not so much. Danger (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of edits like this? That, and comments like this to an admin suggest to me that he simply enjoys attacking others and has no desire to conform to conduct expected. What do you think? Greg L (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you (for your part) addressed the substance of an issue that Bull himself raised to the community, asking for input. Bull's response to your substantive comment appears to be non-substantive.

In addition, I don't have the faintest idea what his reference to a "blog" is all about. It looks from the context and tone like a throw-away effort to bait you. As it doesn't make any sense, I would suggest you simply ignore it.

In general, I'm puzzled by his hostility. He asked a substantive question. You gave a fair, reasoned, substantive response. In turn, he appears to have engaged in a non-civil, non-substantive posting.

As to his public insult to the admin, writing: "How you ever became an admin is a crime against good judgment" -- well, he is entitled to his opinion, of course, but that certainly seems to fall on the wrong side of the civility divide.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And what do you make of this complaint by Bulldog about having someone watch over him. He outrageously slanted the evidence. Wasn’t Bulldog123 following you around literally ten times more aggressively? Wasn’t he starting AfDs on your articles and—if they failed—hen-pecked on them incessantly? Now that seems to be wikihounding. I’m not even editwarring with him; just encouraging him to not edit against consensus as he goes from article to article to push his agenda. I really don’t *get* this guy. Greg L (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- I've already complained to Bull more than once about his having followed me to dozens of articles (which he never edited before), only to revert my most recent edits there. More than one editor -- including a sysop -- reverted him in turn. That is to my mind was classic wikihounding on his part.

AN/Is call for focus on the editor bringing the AN/I. No doubt, if he brings an AN/I, that his behavior would come to light. It would serve as stark contrast to your substantive engagement of him in your substantive comments, and show that a fairly unusual double standard is being used. It does make one wonder whether he is seeking to simply silence you from expressing a substantive view that is at odds with his. I also note that at least a couple of sysops have indicated that they can no longer afford him the assumption of good faith, given his editing ... I expect that would be relevant in any dispute as well.

As to incivility, Maunus himself has warned Bull for it. It does seem to be an issue that crops up.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]