User talk:Elaqueate/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Your recent edits

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages

Do not refactor or edit the content of my posts. --benlisquareT•C•E 18:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I think we were saving to the same section at the same time. I wasn't trying to prevent you from leaving your message about doing whatever you were trying to do to avoid paywalls. Have a nice day!--Elaqueate (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

CBC.ca

Hi, I noticed you moved CBC.ca back to Chelsea. In the light of this I think it is clear that they are using Bradley though, as this is after the announcement they were using Chelsea, and they explicitly changed the AP release from Chelsea to Bradley. I think that makes it clear that they may have said that they will use Chelsea, they are not actually doing that. How do you view that? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If I may butt in and offer my 2c, perhaps CBC.ca should be listed in the section "News agencies which haven't clearly chosen one name over the other". I had found an AP article they ran which contained all of "Chelsea", "Bradley" and "she"(!). -sche (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
They didn't announce on August 23, they announced on Sept 5 or later. They added the announcement to an Aug 23 story. I think an explicit message that they have chosen one name over the other should remove doubt, not increase it. __Elaqueate (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Searching on this page reveals "www.cbc.ca/.../2013/08/23/whats-in-a-name/ - 54k - 2013-09-06"; this means they added the note on September 6. They started using Chelsea on the radio the day before.

Discretionary Sanctions

In case you didn't know, there was a remedy at the Sexology arbitration case that resulted in discretionary sanctions being authorized. You are hereby notified that should you fail to abide by the standards normally expected of editors while making edits on any articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification, sanctions can be levied against you by any uninvolved administrator, including but not limited to blocks, topic bans, as well as any other device that is needed to ensure the project can run smoothly. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Categorization should follow statements in the text of the article

Since categories do not directly have sources, a categorization should follow statements in the text of an article. That a fact can be verified is not enough, the verification should exist in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded in recognition of your contributions to building the evidence base for the Chelsea Manning move. Well done! Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Elaqueate. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Diego (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope you enjoyed your cookies

... and I was glad to see the SPA tagging removed. That really should have been discussed first, and then applied by a neutral editor if warranted. In the now boxed up section you said, "I didn't know that talk page discussions were considerd "edits" or maybe I would have contributed less." I don't quite follow you there. Talk page edits are real edits, but there is nothing wrong with that. They may be counted, but they certainly aren't counted against you. Here is an interesting editing statistics analyzer you might be interested in.

Please stick around and help us improve many parts of this encyclopedia. Cheers. -- ToE

Thanks, I didn't know talk page contributions were also called edits. I had thought that referred to changes to the actual article and was asking there for some clarification. I understand now. And you can see I haven't made many changes to actual articles yet. But it's been educational so far. And thanks for the note. __Elaqueate (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning Arb page

Did I? If I did, please restore it; I do apologise. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I think I see what happened: Sometimes if two edits happen really close to each other, one overrides the other. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, restored. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: It's all good. I just hadn't seen an edit conflict like that, so I thought you'd want to know in case it was a bug or something. __Elaqueate (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your sig

I was just posting over at WP:BLPN, and you had posted in the section above. I thought I'd let you know the color of your signature is completely illegible to me, and I have fairly normal eyesight. You might want to change the color so people can see it. See WP:SIGAPP-- if I have a hard time seeing it, others may not see it at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

incorrect categorization

EQ, removing a clearly incorrect category is not "emptying" - there is ample precedent that removing items from a cat which clearly do not belong is permitted. What is not permitted is to remove all items, or to remove valid items, from same category. In this case, the category in question is for people, and Category:Women of color by definition excludes people. Even if Category:Women by ethnicity is kept, women of color should never be a sub-set of same, because it doesn't and won't ever contain people. Please stop reverting and just let the removal stand - I added a see-also link instead, which is common in these cases.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As Category:Women of color currently contains individual women, whether it's intended to or not, it was included. If you think the Category:Women of color contains entries it shouldn't, take it up there. It's disputable whether the consensus is that Category:Women of color should never contain individual women, despite the disclaimer. Right now you are emptying a category that you have nominated for deletion and this is premature. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please follow BRD

You made a bold edit, you were reverted. If you want to discuss why you were reverted, we can do so here. The reason is, tradition - traditionally we classify people by nationality, and in some cases, ethnicity (when that ethnicity is not a recognized nationality) - and then we group those together (e.g. ethnicities and nationalities). If you start adding "X women" where X is a nationality to the "Women by ethnicity" category, then it will eventually end up as a duplicate of Category:Women by nationality which doesn't serve any purposes, as I could argue under the same grounds that Hungarian or Finnish or Chinese or Thai are also ethnicities. This is just the current way these categories are set up, and I don't think it does any good to combine the two, as you end up burying the ethnicities that are not closely identified with a particular nationality. Another problem is the nationality cats themselves - while "Hungarian" is both a nationality and an ethnicity, the way we "use" Hungarian people is to describe people who are either from there, or who have lived there long enough to be considered from that place. You may thus have people who are described as Hungarian, but who in actuality wouldn't identify as "ethnically" Hungarian. The American category is a great example of same - we have many people who are called "American" but who may consider themselves ethnically inuit or whatever. The same applies for your english and welsh categories - as such, adding them is flawed and screws up the logic. Categorization of people by ethnicity and nationality is always a deeply complex and flawed process, but the current rough consensus we have in place to have nationality as the top-level containers (in most cases), and then divide those nationalities by relevant/notable ethnicities (see Rakie_Ayola who is in Category:Welsh_people_of_Sierra_Leonean_descent for an illustration of how the nationality categories intersect with the ethnic ones).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about categorizing individual articles. Don't confuse the issue. Categories can have a place in more than a single hierarchical path of container categories. Category:French jazz musicians happily sits under both Category:Jazz musicians by nationality and Jazz. It has more than one ultimate "top-level" category, leading upwards to both "Musicians" and "French people". Battling every parallel hierarchy is as silly as saying because the French path is useful to someone, the Musician path should be weeded out for cluttering up Wikipedia. A single top-level category is a bit of a fiction, and not an attainable goal. Intersections happen all the time. The ethnicity categories currently contain more also-a-political entities without fuss then you've explained. You're not suggesting that Category:Scottish people be taken out of out of the container category Category:Celtic people because of Scotland's existence as a political entity, are you? __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
technically it should, as there are Scottish people who aren't Celtic (many, in fact). Like I said, there's no perfect solution, but there are better solutions, and for me keeping nationalities out of the top-level lines of people-by-ethnicity gives browsers a sense of the non-national-based cats we have.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Another way we treat ethnicity vs nationality cats differently is in diffusion. Per WP:EGRS, categories based on ethnicity should be non-diffusing, but categories based on nationality are not. This is because nationality is almost always fully diffusing - everyone has a nationality (with rare exceptions), but we don't categorize on all ethnicities - for example, we don't have "Caucasian Americans".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Which is why I'm surprised you're trying to eliminate non-diffusing categories while bringing up "ghettoization" issues that don't apply. Something like the "Women by Ethnicity" cat doesn't remove those sub-cats from other hierarchies, it only gathers those cats where we have a sufficient number of subject-related pages to form groupings. That is, if you weren't trying to empty the categories of useful meaning. It is being used to gather an intersection of pre-existing cats, without any forced or implied diffusion issues. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean 'trying to eliminate non-diffusing categories'? What are you talking about? This particular women-by-ethnicity isn't needed, because I'm not convinced we need 'grouping' categories at various levels of the trees; in my experience they end up being not filled in. Also, plz AGF, accusing me of emptying a category of useful meaning is just spiteful, I've done no such thing. I was bringing up the diffusion issue here to point out a real way in which we treat ethnicities differently than nationalities.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Apology

Look in your talk page history for a nicely worded rant of mine which, unfortunately, was aimed at the wrong editor: my apologies. When I looked closer I saw that you, on Talk:Patrick Califia, were commenting on a rant, and I thought the rant was yours. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem Drmies, I completely understand the confusion. I was confused myself about why two editors were pushing the same policy-offending statement until I figured out the edit history. You were right to be concerned and I hope the editors responsible understand what's appropriate now. Thank you for your work and attention. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Closure review

I agree with you that it is surprising for a closer to switch a closure to its opposite. If nothing else, it makes it seem like the closer did not read the discussion closely — if they came to one conclusion, and then switched to another after receiving feedback/pushback. If you think it would be productive, you could request a WP:Closure review. One outcome of such a review might be to simply re-open the RFC and solicit new comments. (Personally, I don't think I have the time/energy to file such a review.) -sche (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Arachnophobia

Hey Elaqueate. You reverted my edit at Arachnophobia. This is fine in principle, but your edit summary justification for doing so doesn't quite satisfy me. Me saying "sorry if I missed something" didn't mean "sorry if I missed your opinion." Again, as far as I can tell from the talk page, there has been a long discussion going on (and even a somewhat silly edit war) about what kind of pic to include in this article. Seems to me that editors there put a lot of energy trying to figure out how to illustrate this article in a proper way and eventually succeeded in reaching consensus. Could you please point me to some evidence that this consensus has since then changed? If not, I shall put the pic up again at some point. Thanks! SalimJah (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, SalimJah thanks for the follow up! I can't speak to a consensus from years ago, but the article has been picture-free for at least the last couple of months. Having a picture seemed to inspire multiple vandalism attempts and I think people collectively chose not to re-instate it after a series of those attempts; it's been that way until your good faith edit. We could re-attempt a consensus more formal than that, but it seems like deciding how to illustrate a mental disorder might lead to similar disagreements as earlier times, over something decorative. And I don't see where there was formal consensus to keep it in or out before, just an exhausted cease-fire. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

hard act to follow

after your comment above... exhausted cease-fire, there are quite few around the place.

Thanks for putting the cfds there, not sure if many watch - or even the main australian noticeboard might elicit a response even. Silly season and a few heatwaves can keep watching down... and even less and less regular eds around on the ozstralian editing scene these days as well... satusuro 15:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Steve Herrod for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to TutorVista may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |homepage = [http://www.tutorvista.com/ tutorvista.com]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sonora Matancera may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • sextetos, and septetos active at this time, but carved out a niche for itself in the Cuban capital.[<ref name="autogenerated1975"/>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Macrophilia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giants (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

sanctions warnings

I suggest you read the appropriate wording of how "warnings" are currently logged and note that such warnings do not have to be made by admins, and that discussions are ongoing as to the future of the log pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Completed

Check Indomania, and the recent edition. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your reply. As I suspected the reasons given by User:Langus-TxT for removing those cites was bogus (ie WP:PRIMARY and the fact that Weddell is not a historian). I would be grateful if you could comment that the reference is in fact a WP:RS but that previous editors have not reflected what the source had said. I would agree with your assessment in that respect and will do some more research to see if those claims are valid. I am hesitant to remove them immediately as it seems that sources have been removed from that article by User:Langus-TxT with the aim of removing claims he sees as contrary to his own beliefs. I saw that previously at Talk:History of the Falkland Islands. Regards, BedsBookworm (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, but they cannot be used as a citation for interpretation not in the source. As those sentences had substantial interpretive claims, then it is appropriate to either remove or replace the source per WP:PRIMARY, or to remove the interpretive part of the claim, leaving a more verifiable assertion. It doesn't matter if the claims are against his or your beliefs if they are unsourced. It's not appropriate to give a primary source alone to an interpretive claim as a remedy for its unsourced status. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree but if you look at the history of multiple articles on this subject, that editor cites WP:PRIMARY alone as a reason for removing sources, claiming you can't use primary sources. This is in cases where the statement made in the sources are quoted verbatim and there is no interpretation. On reflection I think you're right, on the basis of a quick read of Weddell, I thought it was good enough. It clearly isn't. Unless his interpretation of WP:PRIMARY is corrected he'll keep on doing it. BedsBookworm (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The shortcut WP:PRIMARY is a policy that explains the use of primary sources. If an interpretive claim is being made that is not supported by a primary source, then WP:PRIMARY says not to use it. No source can be considered a reliable source for a claim it doesn't make. And if it's an interpretation of the source, it can't have the source as the citation per WP:PRIMARY. Was there a non-interpretive claim reference that was removed citing WP:PRIMARY? If not, there was no problem citing it as the reason to remove a specific citation. And a source isn't given blanket allowance as a RS, it always depends on the context and the claim it's being used to support. If an editor challenged the use of a primary source because it was being used to support interpretive non-primary material then that editor was correct to cite WP:PRIMARY__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Joe E Ross

I think you made a mistake. The source of that citation is an extremely legitimate news source, WFMU, not the Examiner. The editor who came over and commented on the talk page said the Examiner, but I can't find any proof it was every published there. In addition, the author of the report is Kliph Nesteroff, a writer considered to be a show-business expert. This discussion was whether or not this blog from a reputable news source counted as a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. I said it did per Wikipedia Identifying Reliable Sources guidelines, which state "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write." --SouthernNights (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I should add that all of this is irrelevant to Joefromrandb's behavior. I'm happy to discuss the issue of the reliability of this source with any and all editors. But I don't like any editor attacking others, which hurts any attempt to reach consensus. Thanks for taking part in the discussion on the article's talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Turns out the editor who'd commented about the Examiner introduced the edits to that unreliable source. I'd missed that edit and didn't realize it'd happened, hence my confusion. I've re-inserted the original info and source, which is that WFMU article. So the question then comes down to whether or not that WFMU article is reliable.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
SouthernNights, I agree there are behavior issues to discuss. But as you've figured out the article (as it stood when I encountered it) had material solely sourced to a blacklisted source: Mel Neuhaus (April 7, 2011). "OOOOH! OOOOH!...DVD Takes a Spin With Car 54". New York Examiner. I didn't remove the sentence that was sourced to WFMU and am happy to talk about its reliability on the talk page. I would add that the material I removed wasn't an accurate version of material in the WMFU source, even if we consider it a reliable source. And you should know that the material looked like it was taken more directly from the Examiner.com site than the WMFU site, which would account for the misquotes. We should sort out what WFMU actually says before re-introducing errors of fact taken from the bad source.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. I thought I'd quoted correctly, but feel free to take out anything I goofed up. I re-inserted because that Examiner issue seemed to be adding unneeded confusion. I'd also like to add more positive info about the subject's life but he's very hard to find personal information on. Not trying to cause you any trouble on all this, and thanks for looking into the issues here.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, no worries. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the article has reached consensus. Thanks for your help. However, I'm frustrated at how the other admins are taking Joefromrandb's attacks as no big deal. I'm happy to work with people on articles and, if I'm wrong I'll admit it. That WFMU article, while still a reliable source, had issues which I hadn't considered until you pointed them out. If Joefromrandb had simply kept a civil head and not attacked editors, this would have been resolved earlier and painlessly. But it appears the other admins consider his responses appropriate, which is frustrating. Am I misinterpreting what I consider attacks by him? --SouthernNights (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the people I thought were other admins defending him on the Admin Noticeboard are regular editors. My mistake. But that doesn't change my concern. Am I wrong about what I thought of as attacks by him?--SouthernNights (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
SouthernNights, I think you're correct to see the behavior as disruptive and needlessly confrontational. From his history, I see that he's uncivil whether it's a point I agree with or not, so I don't feel it's about content. Here's my opinion on what might be happening: You pointed out that this user has had multiple blocks over past months; this means there are admins who have taken this type of behavior as more than "no big deal" and presumably would for a shown pattern of future incidents. Some editors may be inured to it, in the "belligerent Thanksgiving uncle" sense. Other admins who are concerned about his behavior might be waiting for the clearest possible re-offense so they're not getting into a dispute over sanctions in a borderline case, or waiting for the smaller interactions to pile up into a pattern that can't be argued with per Wikipedia:ROPE. I think many editors recognize the incivility as inappropriate. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mano people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mande (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

David Jewett

I don't believe you're entirely correct in removing all of the comments on Jewett related to the Uranie. Weddell does comment that the ceremony was calculated to re-inforce the claim on the Uranie. I've added some material back sourced to a secondary source I've found. In addition, I think you've thrown the baby out with the bath water removing the copyvio. It would appear to have removed a significant view that is in the literature; its certainly something that has received a lot of press [1] [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Would it not have been better to copy edit to remove it? Regards, BedsBookworm (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not how copy vio works. You remove it before Wikipedia gets sued, you don't keep it in while you mess around with it. I didn't remove most of that, but I certainly don't think removing Wikipedia-endangering text is a bad thing. I think you can agree that plagiarism is inappropriate, and the editor who added it has been indefinitely blocked.
As for your links, that looks like a series of letters-to-the-editor between an extremely pro-Falkland Island pair of non-peer-reviewed writers and a former member of Argentina's government. Do you want to add them both for balance? __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Mylawsuit.com

Hi, Elaquaete. Thanks for helping edit Mylawsuit.com. You removed several secondary citations because the text for which they were cited did not make specific claims. Instead of deleting the references, could you please consider looking into those secondary sources to see whether the references should be cited for specific claims? Thanks!

--Vindeniträden (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

1. If the only claim is that coverage was had, it's not a notable claim. 2. The point isn't to put in citations you think are interesting; it's to have a neutral and verifiable article. Citations are meant to verify the claims; it's not the responsibility of anyone to pull interesting things out of sources you provide. You have it backwards. 3. If your content has been reverted please discuss before re-inserting, as you have done. __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Got it. I’ll take a look into the citations myself and see whether they make any worthwhile claims. --Vindeniträden (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem. (And since sources can always be added in later if a new statement is made, there's never a strong reason to "preserve" them in the mainspace until that happens.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 06:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dock Ellis

This is not the first time I've noticed you editing an article right after I have made a change. Is this a coincidence?Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh you know...you comment on the main BLP noticeboard a lot so I sometimes check your history to see if you've actually made a particular change you've discussed. If I see something else interesting I might comment. The incidents aren't related, so I suppose that's the exact definition of coincidental. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
That's a bit creepy,Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think the last time I noticed an edit of yours you were blanking sections in pages. So I remember checking back then to see if vandalism was habitual (which I think is an appropriate thing to check for) but I don't generally care what you do, as long as you're generally within policy. Are you saying you'd like me to stop editing in some way? __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd like for you to stop following me altogether, it's creepy. So stop.20:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't and am not following you. That's an unfair assessment. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Then I trust this will be the last time you ever appear right after me at a low profile article. Ever.
This (and your edit summary) come across as threatening. You might have a problem with WP:AGF. In any case, one intersecting edit over two months is a pretty weak case for whatever you're complaining about.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

always check how the characters are referred to in the articles

--Niemti (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Something you might find interesting

Please email me, I have some information to share with you - not sooper-seekrit but probably best considered quietly rather than splashed all over the project. Keep up the good work, Guy (Help!) 10:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Guy, i'm sorry, but I haven't set up email notifications. Of course I'm now very curious and would like to help, but it has been nice not worrying about direct emails popping up when I haven't set aside some Wikipedia time; this might be a selfish attitude. I appreciate the thought and am happy to help look at anything that needs looking at.
As I think about it now, if I stick with total transparency, then any future mistakes I make are my own, and there's no implication of any off-wiki co-ordination, even when done in the best of faith. I wouldn't want another editor open to that accusation if someone didn't like an edit I made. Have I overthought this? You're just wanting to show me something innocuous and I'm rambling. You have more Wikipedia experience than me, if you think it would be of more benefit than this concern, I'll reconsider. I appreciate your good work as well. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Piercy Ravenstone may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ((DEFAULTSORT:Ravenstone, Piercy}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you, Elaqueate. You're a positive voice in the discussion and improvement of the Falkland Islands article. I hope to keep interacting with you in the article friend. Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pseudonymous sportspeople

Category:Pseudonymous sportspeople, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ottawa

Actually, I'm not trolling their contributions at all - the nominations come from walking through the tree. I just checked and the categories I've nominated of Ottawas have been created at different times, some more than a year ago. I don't look at who created a cat before sending it to CFD, I just use twinkle which does auto-notifications. It is the case that we seem to disagree on which gendered cats are notable and worth keeping, but I'm not targeting their contributions. Specifically - I just come across too many of these that ghettoize or otherwise violate our guidance and as you can see consensus is usually with me. I don't think these mezzanine cats are good unless the mezzanine subject is itself a subject of study - like women scientists which is very diverse but women scientists is itself spoken of as a group, whereas 'women who are sailors or surfers or windsurfers or pirates' or 'women who either play poker, bridge, or work as video game designers' is not. Such cats must be non-diffusing and it complicates the tree needlessly. Our tree is so deep that the creation of mezzanine categories at every level would add a ton of complication for parenting with little value add - thus only worthy and sourced mezzanines should survive. It's a simple violation of EGRS, even if kept as a container, because it nonetheless suggests that the intersection of those jobs + woman is a subject of study but it's not not not not - even in forestry the correct cat would be Women foresters, not 'women somehow connected to occupations with deal somewhat with trees'.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I never said you were deleting Ottawa's categories the same week they made them, but that your own deletions have been steady. But if, as you say, you're just been targeting gendered categories for deletion, that seems problematic in itself.
The unfair description of Category:women who are sailors or surfers or windsurfers or pirates is clearly silly and a bit of a waste of my time. This is like calling Category:Vegetables Category:Peas and Corn and Random others. People are commenting on these categories as if they weren't container categories, and that seems ignorant to me. It's a grouping of like categories, it's not a direct grouping of a specific pirate article with a specific windsurfer. The structure of this argument could be applied in the same broken way to (chosen at random) Category:Missionaries by saying: "But Jewish missionaries and murdered missionaries are completely different things. Who are we to group them?" I wouldn't call this category Category:Jewish missionaries and medical missionaries and murdered missionaries and linguists just to make it seem like it was randomly grouping unlike things. If Category:People in the games industry groups articles that would look strange together if they weren't sub-categorized (What does this fellow have to do with this guy? It's okay they're clearly subcategorized), then that has nothing to do with creating a cross-category to help navigate Category:Women by occupation.
And I wish you'd read up on what forestry is, because it is a variety of occupations related to resource management and conservation, whatever the gender of the person doing it. It's lumberjacks and scientists and more. This bit about whether the "intersection of those jobs + woman is a subject of study but it's not not not not - even in forestry the...}} is specifically insulting to me, as I gave you examples of where people were studying women in forestry across occupations, looking at the field as a whole.
Your statement "Such cats must be non-diffusing" is wrong if you're saying an EGRS cat must never be diffused itself. WP:EGRS says that the parent cat of an EGRS cat must be non-diffusing. That doesn't mean the "child" EGRS cat can't be diffused in itself normally. Just look at the example: Category:African-American politicians is a sub-cat of Category:American politicians. It says that Category:American politicians must be non-diffusing, and have the articles that are put in Category:African-American politicians. That doesn't, in any way, mean that Category:African-American politicians can't have sub-cats.
I don't see any suggestion that gendered categories should never diffuse into subcategories WP:EGRS says that :Cross-categories are typically used to split larger categories (e.g. Category:LGBT sportspeople is used to reduce the size of Category:LGBT people)." You seem to be saying we should dump as many cross-categories as we can. You're suggesting EGRS cat trees should be less navigable than the parent, which goes against the spirit of WP:EGRS.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding what diffusing means. American politicians is not non-diffusing, African-American politicians is. A non-diffusing cat is one which doesn't remove contents from the parent. A cat can be non-diffusing on one parent and diffusing on another. Secondly, absolutely ergs trees should be 'less navigable' - otherwise you'd have to reproduce the whole generic tree in gender and ethnicity and religion as well, which would cause complications even worse than we have now. There is a limit, we simply disagree on where that line is. Now, of course an EGRS cat can be diffused (ex:by nationality, by job) but the cat itself - and importantly, all of the contents, no matter how deeply nested, - must always be non-diffusing on any neutral parent. Do you understand the difference? One is a description looking up the tree, the other is going down the tree - so obviously Women can be diffused, but it _must_ be non-diffusing on People. Where it gets confusing is where people want to create a subcategory that is diffusing in one tree and non-diffusing in another - like women in forestry is diffusing of women by occupation, but it's non-diffusing of people in forestry - and that's where last rung rule and other ergs guidelines come into play. (Fwiw, i read your cites on forestry and am simply not convinced they cover the broad sweep of that category) these mezzanine cats also pose a big risk because by simply adding them to a new neutral parent you can immediately ghettoize all of their contents without even realizing it. Finally as to your points on peas and corn etc, you seem to think that if we group people by X, we can group women by X. This is really deeply wrong, and I really wish you'd understand why. A gendered or ethnic category -even a container - has a much higher bar, if we could do gender + arbitrary container category this would add thousands of cats to the tree. We should not, we should focus such containers to cases where we can establish that the container is itself an object of study, or utility containers like X by nationality. Otherwise we are implicitly making a claim of importance not backed up by sources. I don't target gender cats, I target all bad cats, it just so happens I have a special eye for useless gender cats having done lots of deghettoization, it frustrates me to see these lying about and I think it's bad for the wiki, and my record is pretty good, the cfd crowd seems to agree with the bulk of my proposals. I also create gendered cats sometimes, or help rearrange trees, I recently did some work unwinding princes and princesses for example, so I'm not against them, I'm just picky, unlike our friend Ottawa who has created many dozens, stuffed one person inside and then gone away. I think care should be taken before creating a gendered cat and the ghettoization potential negative is much worse than any marginal navigational benefit in many cases.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)

Your submission at AfC Emily Howell Warner was accepted

Emily Howell Warner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emily Howell Warner, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pilot and Air and Space Museum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

AN discussion

Hi,

This was at AN, but I've realized it's better said here. You may get a mystery ping as a result, apologies for any confusion.

I've removed a comment of yours, and part of the one below it, from the discussion, because for the sake of kindness we should try to avoid any discussions of off-wiki events. There have been enough real life difficulties for the person in question already, and they don't have a direct bearing on this discussion. You can revert me if you disagree, but I'd really prefer that you didn't.

Many thanks, — Scott • talk 20:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Scott, you realize that you left my responses to those comments hanging with no context, right? And as for "real life difficulties", haven't they all been of his own making? I don't see why we are protecting him from his own actions. Yes, I agree that there's no need to put it in a headline and make a major deal of it, but I disagree with sweeping it in the corner, especially retroactively. I'm not going to undo your deletion, but I wish you would think about reverting it yourself, as I believe it goes too far in the other direction. S I said earlier, what CH did is Wikipedia's version of high treason, and I don't agree with bending over backwards for people who have actively gone out of their way to damage our credibility. BMK (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Scott, I also don't like the implication that I would be "unkind" to point out that the person by this name has a "troubled history". I'm not unkind, I'm concerned for the project. I think it does have a direct bearing on the discussion if the user has done worse than hoax in their real life and that's sourced in the public record. If the reports are true, that person attempted perjured testimony in an attempt to free a convicted murderer, after being convicted of attacking a university student (from the university that we've accepted oodles of articles from this editor's POV). He may have had "real life difficulties" but actions have consequences. If Wikipedia looks like it's covering for an editor discovered to be a known and notorious public fraud, it could risk damaging the project much more than hurt feelings over a public record being noticed by a few more people. I would feel the same way if it was discovered that a sockpuppet editing business articles was discovered to be a financial con artist in real life, or something similar. I didn't say anything cruel, this person does have a troubled and very public history and reputation for falsifying stories in the most serious of circumstances. Maybe it's important that the community understands they're not dealing with someone who has been much more than a casual vandal? I would also like you to consider restoring my comments on your own, as I think that would cause less drama than if it looks like I'm "unkindly" over-ruling your intervention. I know you're navigating competing concerns as much as anyone, but that edit doesn't help. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
None of his criminal record has any direct bearing on his edits to this project. He's been a liar and a fantasist everywhere. First he did it at his college; then here; then in a cell; then here again. So what? Does that make his edits here even worse? Maybe it's important that the community understands they're not dealing with someone who has been much more than a casual vandal? What do you expect us to do, ban him again? Burn him in effigy? His name is mud now; people are swarming all over his editing history. Let that be good enough for us, without scenes of high melodrama. Leave him to stew in whatever misery he brings himself out there. His life is shit enough already, there's no benefit to anyone of us shitting on him even further.
But like I said, if you want to put your comments back, then do it. — Scott • talk 23:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Scott: In all fairness. you deleted it, and now that you know that Elaqueate disagrees with your reasoning, you really should be the one to restore it. BMK (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Scott, I'm going to give you a free tip. If your purpose is to avoid "scenes of high melodrama", avoid directly suggesting I want to burn someone in effigy. This isn't about making his life worse; there are other stakeholders here than him. Not everybody may share the opinion that being, in your words, "a liar and a fantasist everywhere" has no bearing on how we appraise his work here. When I said Maybe it's important that the community understands they're not dealing with someone who has been much more than a casual vandal? I meant that it could help those re-evaluating his edits look for evidence of more than hoaxing one esoteric article (what he was caught for), as he has been guilty of more than light-hearted hoaxing in the past. I don't suggest this because I want to make his life worse, but I would like people to have a more complete picture while investigating, so they might see and fix more damage to the project, from angles they might not consider if they're shielded from basic stuff in his public record. As a possible example, he was convicted of assaulting a Rutgers University student, and most of his edits have been to proclaim what a patriotic Rutgers person he was; some in the community might want to evaluate his contribution from that angle for themselves before prejudging all his work "probably top-notch" in this area. I don't know what people will turn up, but it's not like he just stole somebody's lunch money or jaywalked.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I've re-removed your comments - you should not be speculating on the real-life identity of an editor, however likely it seems, and certainly not linking them with past crimes committed in real-life. WP:BLP still applies y'know. GiantSnowman 11:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It is an admitted identity, isn't it? And it's in the public record, it's not speculation that the person has a troubled history. I don't quite see how this is different than a COI discussion where it's important to understand where a disruptive editor is coming from.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Given the editor's long history of lying and hoaxing, we cannot and should not put any reliance in who they claim to be. GiantSnowman 12:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
That, at least, sounds fair and a more valid point than the idea that it is "not kind" to mention a history of major consequence real life lying when assessing someone's credibility, after they've been caught lying. I still think we should evaluate the contributions with the idea that there's the possibility he was truthful there, or we risk looking like fools. Thanks for the response.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Elaqueate, there's another reason that I'd rather not touch on here. I can't email you through Wikipedia (it reports you've not specified a valid email address) but if you'd like to email me, I'd be glad to reply. NebY (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I've not linked my email because I'm okay without Wikipedia showing up in my inbox at odd hours of the night (I could turn off notifications but I know I wouldn't). That means I don't get interesting backstory or get dragged into behind-the-scenes gossip and I'm okay with that. I'll trust that people more in the know are probably acting in good faith, and I won't push it. But even assuming incredibly good faith and good intentions, and whatever the scenario is, Wikipedia should probably still find a way to demonstrate it's not hiding a scandalous editor solely for the purposes of defensive self-protection. Nobody wants a Penn State / Catholic Church situation of authorities trying to make peace through enforced silence, mystery and offender shielding, and we wouldn't be able to set the story straight with private emails if it started getting more outside scrutiny. Not knowing what some know, I couldn't say how to do that, but I can say that it could look off to anyone outside a trusted circle. Hiding negative info for good reasons often backfires on the hider, and transparency is better, for all parties, in the long game. Thanks for the offer of an email, though.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome! And I have a lot of sympathy with everything you're saying. I'm not trying to protect Wikipedia or any editor either, and I've not been exchanging emails or been on IRC or anything like that - I just noticed something, that's all. NebY (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@NebY: feel free to e-mail me or somebody else, should you wish. GiantSnowman 17:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Elaqueate you will likely find NebY's e-mail very interesting. GiantSnowman 11:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I award this barnstar in appreciation for your vigorous defense of our policy on Biographies of Living People. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I will not apologize for attacking Filipacci until that privilaged child of rich parents apologizes for attacking me and many other hard working editors of wikipedia. (Redacted) John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Elaqueate/Archive_1"