User talk:Franamax

To keep discussions coherent, I will usually answer in the talk page where the first message was placed.

If I left you a message in another talk page, please answer there: I will have it on my watch list.

Welcome!

Hello, Franamax, welcome Wikipedia! Hope little Franamax like. Here helpful pages:

• Hrair pillars Wikipedia
• Make article
• Help!
• Help, help!
• Make article bigger
• Er... what this for..? How write picky ?

Hope little user enjoy and edit smart like Bishzilla! Please sign talk pages using, er ... many tildes (~~~~) ('zilla can only count to three, regret!), clever automagic feature. If helpless, check out questions wikipedia, ask on 'zilla talk, or put {{helpme}} on own talk, get help soon. Again, welcome! 

Now that's a welcome page, had to steal it myself. Thanks Bishzilla! Franamax 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful input at the PD page

I refer to your comments here. I found them quite insightful. I'm glad to see your participation at the general sanctions page as well. I think it's interesting that you have the perception that I don't see both factions as problematic. Based on recent statements by me that's certainly a supportable perception so I need to do better at articulating that. But I also think that ATren's response was pretty good. If you'd like to discuss further I'm open, here or on my talk... which as you know is a pretty visible page so would get input from others as well if we removed to there. Best. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC and escalating alphabeticals

In the limited context established at Wikipedia:Escalating alphabeticals, please consider adding an outside view at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. The correspondence between the essay and the RfC is not exact, but I recognize congruence in the tactics of (a) conflating issues and (b) sidetracking.

In my view, your essay presents an arguably useful tool in a process of highlighting the elephant in the room. If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

PIG

Actually the increase in flow of PIG is not intimately bound with global warming. Atmospheric warming almost certainly has absolutely nothing directly to do with flow increases on PIG seeing as the average annual temperature is -25 deg C and the surface never reaches freezing point, but nice attempt at trying to use this editing to prove I am a climate change fanatic. Polargeo (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, you are bringing a pretty high level of hostility to proceedings. I have never tried to prove you are a "climate change fanatic" in any way. And I was referring to warm ocean water having an effect on PIG, not slightly warmer freezing-cold air. Franamax (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved Party Needed

I remember you did a good job mediating a disagreement at Christian Metal. I will refrain from comment but I hope you have the time to take a look at the conflict at Concept Album which has now devolved into name calling. Ridernyc (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

IP 65.25.178.154 had been blocked for 3 months last April 28.[1] Their very first edit after the block was lifted was to begin repeating that same pattern of vandalism.[2]. My sense is that more than 3 months is merited, as the IP is an assigned Roadrunner static IP from Herndon, Virginia,[3] and being used only by someone who seems determined to continue that same patern of vandalism. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As the IP began more vandalism after two "only warnings" and after I finished removing the 50-odd edits from July 29 til now,[4] and knowing you were away for a bit, I asked Cirt to block the static IP.[5] We'll see what happens 6 months from now.[6] Thanks for asking me to clean up. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I've opened a request for modification of the prior sanction at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#William_M._Connolley_comment_editing_restriction_modification. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Input please

I'd appreciate your input and feedback regarding my proposed proposed remedy/enforcement found here. Thanks. Minor4th 17:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Castro-Trudeau 1976 - LAC PA136976.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Castro-Trudeau 1976 - LAC PA136976.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Rude IP comments

Previously titled "Communist ass licker!" [also e/c during refactor] Franamax (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, that's what you are being accused of. Please see User talk:217.113.225.18 and its history. Thanks, and have a nice day! Drmies (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Don't you know they conspire to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids? –MuZemike 22:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

More admin abuse, clearly, from an unrepentant POV warrior. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Drmies. I changed the heading, just thinking about my talk archives. :) You can just remove that kind of stuff, or bring it to another admin's attention if it's persistent. MuZemike, what a great movie! Still, I'm glad to live in Vancouver where god delivers our water. Lots of water. Lots. :) Franamax (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I thought that maybe you wanted to exercise your mop a bit more. You are much less vindictive than I might be; kudos. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the issue you raised on my talk page

I think you raise some excellent points, however there are some salient issues you seem to have missed. Your feelings on the matter are important to me, and I would like to hear what you have to say in response to my further comments. --Jayron32 05:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Cowed by Elsie?

You're onto something. I could keep a quick postable link or two (on my PC where no one else can touch them) and post them whenever this comes up. That could save a lot of time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Since you've been dealing with this, an ANI thread has been started at WP:ANI#User:Ludwigs2 advocating other users commit rape.. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Assist please?

Seems a few article being held at WP:Incubate's "Category:Article Incubator candidate for articlespace" are not being evaluated. Could you please review THESE as all 4 appear ready, though I can speak knowledgably only about 2... Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Demarco Morgan and Wikipedia:Article Incubator/A Marine Story.

1. the article on Demarco Morgan was sent to Incubator only because it did not have sources when at AFD in order for it to be improved.[7] Since incubation, the article has been cleaned-up, expanded, and properly sourced. It's ready.
2. the article on A Marine Story was sent because the film was not released at the time of AFD. [8] It was incubated to await release and coverage. The film was subsequently released, received many decent reviews, and the article has now been expanded and sourced to reflect its release and coverage. It's ready.

I'd do it myself, but would prefer a second set of eyes. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• A Marine Story looks OK to me and even notable based on my hazy understanding of film notability. I took out the sentence about the type of camera used - did it contribute something of note to artistic quality?

• Sometimes film equpment used for particular cinemagraphic effect does relate to an artistic quality of completed film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Gave it a few more tweaks for style and tone. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Demarco Morgan also looks OK to me, though I have a style quibble: The sentence about the Ebony list is pretty tortured, I would word it as "was listed" and then "why listed", not the other way around. Now since I usually like to see the actual source, I checked Google Books, Ebony has a deal with Google to put their archives there. The article is here, page 120. So first of all, you should be using that as the source, right? And one more source to support your selection of quotes from the Ebony article.

• I have untwisted the sentence and added the cite. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Crash I'd say not ready yet, maybe never will be. There seems to be no discussion of viewership, critical reaction, significance, etc. and I don't really understand why I or anyone else would ever want to read it. All the links are to stubs, maybe these people are notable in Denmark but I see no "story" to read here. Also whatever arguments would be based on the notability guidelines I guess. :)

• Did not seem ready to me either, but the editor who had been working on it thought it was. Maybe drop him/her a line? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• MULTICUBE I would have thought would be notable of its own right, the EU Framework Programmes are a big deal in the science/technology community, at least in Europe. I see though that Thad declined a move and since then the changes add sources for the project results but not for any third-party discussion. And looking at it again, there still is no demonstration of notability. I spent a while looking and found nothing that wasn't in some way tied back to the project itself. I think my initial reaction was "it's taxpayer money, hell yeah there should be an article, was the money well spent?" but really, that's not good enough. :) Could it be merged somewhere? The FP7 article may be too high-level, I didn't read all that much of it. Maybe [[WP:COMPUTING] could help find a home for the material?

Have a thought to rewording the Morgan article. I'll have one more look at the film one. Franamax (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Been done. Busy day, but finally was able to get to it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Inside and outside

Franamax, I will freely admit (here) that I find your point most compelling. I am, however, extremely wary toward too much WP:ANIsm in our little protected garden of reference dandelions. I think the deskians are basically a very tolerant group. More so, perhaps, than the WP:ANI crowd. Situations like this one, however, can turn us into an angry bunch (all sorts of dynamics are involved here, and it would be a lie to say that SteveBaker's status as a SciDesk luminary has nothing whatsoever to do with it). Being slapped and told that this won't do by someone who has zero history (or awareness of history) is (hopefully) proof, that the RefDesk folks, including our admins, are a lenient and laid back crowd. I want to keep it that way. In the interest of minimizing personalized conflicts, I guess I want WP:ANI to do the dirty work. I never wanted this to turn into a didactic exercise for anyone, but I'm relieved that C3 wasn't blocked by a refdesk regular. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

PS, if I had expected the restriction to work, I might not have oppsed (I still wouldn't have supported). I am convinced, WP:AGF notwithstanding, that C3 would have pushed it this far, restrictions or no restrictions. The only difference would have been that we have a precedent of handcuffing a volunteer at WT:RD. This is perhaps not a very persuasive rationale, but it might help you understand my position. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm certainly alive to the potential for abuse within a walled garden. I didn't see that potential in the discussion in question, since it was widely enough attended and had good views being expressed. Had it gone off into bashing territory, I would have joined you at the barricades. Of course I'm bound to be swayed by my own personal opinion on how to solve the problem, but it really didn't seem like a situation where two or three editors got together to plot an arbitrary course of action. I'll agree with you on having a feeling of relief that the "bad-ness" of the situation was so resoundingly confirmed in such a definitive manner, by a removed party.

I will though stick to my belief that matters should be settled first at as low a level as possible. I think there is a fundamental unfairness to channeling everything through ANI, in particular for editors who know ANI as a distant concept rather than the brutal reality. I'm more familiar with the environment and can handle myself there, that's not always true of each editor - so I feel it's a bit unfair for me to bring conflict to that arena and I'd prefer not to see others get dragged in if they're not up to speed. Nice to have as a safety valve, but wouldn't want to make a habit of it. :)

I really think everyone was participating from genuine motives, hopefully we can craft a welcoming environment when C3 returns too. Side note, I read your "On singling out editors" post at WT:RD with great interest and find it quite valid in large part. I'm still thinking on how to properly implement your ideas. I've certainly had success in the past with private communication (email) as a way of discussing things informally and effecting small changes (or not) in behaviour. It's a fine line though, between communicating transparently and communicating effectively. Thanks for the food for thought! Franamax (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I tried to type out my thoughts twice, but I can't capture what I want to say. Just letting you know that I appreciate your reply a lot, and that I'm thinking about it and also reconsidering my stance. I'll let you know when I have something relevant to say. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

misc

Speaking of Freudian slips... "busing" multiple accounts? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I had that fixed before you oranged me, I swears it! :) Are you not familiar with the technique of doubling your edit count using typos? Franamax (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And it's one of the areas where I'd be fine if you fixed it with "presumed typo" in the summary. Even though that violates my policy of never ever encouraging Baseball Bugs. ;) Franamax (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can ya do me a favor....?

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/$30 Film School: I was a major contributor to that article, and involved in it surviving an earlier AFD... but was never informed that it was sent to AFD a second time, not that I am blaming new editor User:Kindzmarauli. Could you please userfy it for me to the sandbox I have waiting at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/$30 Film School so that I might look improve it before sending it to incubation for evaluation? I had asked this of the deleting editor,[9] but it appears that User:Tone is on a Wiki-break.[10] Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, knock yourself out dude. I see no objectionable content in any of the now-restored article versions, and hopefully I've userfied it properly. I'm pretty confident you won't hang onto it too long if it turns out you can't whip it into shape, Franamax (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure enough, and thanks. All I'll need a several decent reviews of the book, and showing that it is spoken abut in independent reliable sources... and then I'll send it to incubation for evaluation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And while you're in the neighborhood...

Could you also userfy Michael W. Dean to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Michael W. Dean? He's the author of $30 Film School. While working to improve THAT article,[11] I came across a lot about this guy in multiple reliable sourses. And in wondering why his article was gone, I found the AFD discussion... which led me to believe that the article was unfortunately SO poorly writen by its newb author, that she was unable to convince anyone, even with the sources she offered, that it was salvagable. Her talk page reflects her "warm welcome" to Wikipedia and its processes.[12] Sad. I dropped her a line... just in case... but she seems to have left the project after that. It may require complete rewrite, but I'm hoping the article and its "inline cites" might have enough with which to begin. Pity that she was chased off. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrators

The section for uninvolved admins on the Climate Change RFE page is just that - for admins. When a non-admin posts there you don't get in a conversation with them, you remove the comment. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it's no big deal. I asked a question. WMC answered it with his own opinion, where I'd be sure to see it. I found his terminology confusing and noted that I would do my own research, in a place WMC would probably see it. Someone else clarified the terms, where I would see it. Then someone else moved it out of the admin section, where I could go find it. No biggie, job is done, information is provided, discussion continues, all is (possibly "un") well. Thanks for the note. Franamax (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Hi. A user has popped by my talk page to see if Central place theory plagiarizes from this pdf. I'm not sure. It does follow the structure of the original very closely,though I don't think we're in {{close paraphrase}} range. Can I trouble you for an opinion? Do you think it follows closely enough to require more specific attribution? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say "unlikely". Commented at the article talk page. Franamax (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for slogging, and slogging so exellently at that! :D I wouldn't want to let down a class. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well... I just found an older copy of the pdf, so I've had to change my opinion a little bit. :( I'm going to ask for advice over at WP:Economics. Franamax (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mainland Mania

I've had to learn the hard way not to get my feelings all bent out of shape in disagreements like this, and to just walk away and not give a fuck. Which was very healthy, as the editor you mention will find out too if he really wants to be a postive contributor. Editors, like children, need to be free to skin their knees and learn therefrom. Nice to hear from another grown-up, though - appreciate ya buddy. Textorus (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence my note about not having your email set up. Private notes are sometimes very valuable in diffusing tension, you get to exchange swear words and things you would never say (or do) on the wiki and you get the one-to-one dynamic where you both have to find a way of continuing the conversation, or else decide to end it. When you use private methods to coordinate action on-wiki of course, that's double-plus-bad.

I'm rather mystified at how that debate turned into such a maelstrom. Unstoppable force meets immovable object I suppose. Send out for popcorn and enjoy the show.

Oh yes, you really shouldn't compare editors to children. If you really want to get someone to go ballistic, that's a vrey good way to get the job done. Even if your observation is absolutely true - we don't do truth here, just verifiability. ;) Franamax (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ron's RfA questions

The unanswered ones are optional . -- Avi (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, but everything is optional here. If the option is to not bother to answer a Q at your own RFA, or at least provide your reasoning for why you are declining to answer, fine and well - but then I can draw conclusions about the level of diligence you are willing to devote to the role. Wacky admins are one thing, but unresponsive admins? Don't really need 'em. Just me own opinion of course. :) Franamax (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm... - warning

Thread moved from my Talk pageCuddlyable3 (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cuddlyable3, do you realize that almost immediately after a block returning to the behaviour [4] you were (more or less) blocked for is pretty much grounds for an immediate reblock of equal or longer length? Had you attempted serious resolution of whatever problem you see, maybe you could skate by - but you are just making a bald statement, which looks to me like resumption of your previous disruption. I'm ready to block you myself if you do it again. Franamax (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you wish me to explain the ambiguity in a sentence that was posted at the Ref. Desk, just ask and I shall do my best to provide it. Poster APL has acknowledged[13] the source of the error and so is equally able to explain it. It seems you have a choice between treating the messenger or the message. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki coordination

Greetings -- I was thinking about the question you posted at ANI and on Jpgordon's talk page -- I don't think we have a specific protocol. If someone is vandalizing multiple language wikis, a common occurrence, we can get them globally blocked at Meta, but in the case of a sockpuppeteer/POV-pusher active in only (?) two languages, usually we find someone who speaks both, and have that person post at the other wiki. Admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is reasonably active at de, and German is his native language, so that's one possibility. Do you know if there is a tool like this one for seeking out range contributions in other languages? Offhand I'd bet that particular user is even worse on de, as that's his native language (he's in, or near Vienna). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Good call

Here. Normally I'm not in favour of closing discussion that are still ongoing - I've un-hatted a few myself - but there's nothing new being said; all that can happen now is more drama and bad feelings. :-P Matt Deres (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Big Shiny Tunes

You know what's strange? The Big Shiny Tunes article has had several of those non-free images on the article for years and they had never been complained about. But now since I try to update the album covers to better fitting sizes all of a sudden there's a problem. I'll also add that these images are covers of multi-platinum albums. How many Wikipedia articles of successful multi-platinum albums do you see without a cover? Not many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewGoodfan101 (talk • contribs)

Hmm, maybe you would have been better to leave them alone then? We don't use non-free images as decoration, we use them for identification and education. An image is not necessary to teach the reader what a multi-platinum album cover looks like and it's not likely the reader will be left wondering whether the CD in the store is the "real" Big Shiny Tunes 5. I'm not the one you need to convince though, all I'm going to do is block you if you keep edit-warring. Get consensus from the community to include all the cover images - go to the article talk page, WP:MUSIC, one of the media noticeboards and present your case. If it makes sense others will agree and the images can go in. Just insisting on your version is not gonna get the job done. Franamax (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

@Franamax: he reinstated the images yet again. I've placed a uw-vandal4 warning on his talk page, and VernoWhitney has reverted the re-addition of the images. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Franamax, for your actions at ANI. Most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Dog

Refactored to originating user talk page per my preference. [14] Weird technical problem with Skype toolbar in Firefox on the other users end. Franamax (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Message moved from your user page. You might have never ever ever ever ever seen it otherwise.

Hello Franamax - I hope this gets to you, I saw your last helpful comments on my Hill (list) article as a "revision" note under a message when I logged in, but couldn't go the article discusssion page to respond because I presume it's been deleted already (can't search on it anymore anyway). I will recreate the article as you suggest in my "userspace", and am hopeful of collecting some historical and current third-party references for it. Great to hear your walking interests, I'm a RoW "monitor" for the Ramblers for 2 parishes near my home in liaison with the County Council, so that activity, plus leading and joining Ramblers group walks, plus other group and individual walking, keeps me fit and busy in retirement! Geocaching is an interesting idea, but I'd have to go to them all first to implement it!MVO Rambler (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I need your advice and it's private so I sent you another email. Would you mind taking a look when you get time? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Received. Watching... Franamax (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)"...it doesn't seem as if it's going to stop short of you leaving the articles in question and allowing DocOfSoc to do whatever they want with the article(s)." This is what we call "a tell": way too much knowledge in way too short a time. There are other tells, and I'm about a heartbeat away from tagging, but not before a little querying. Cheers :> Doc talk 20:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Always welcome here. Yeah, I ticked a few items on the checklist. I've given specific advice, if they heed it and edit well, so much the better. Franamax (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll be nice to the user, I promise: this will only help foster good communication for them working with others on future edits here. I just want to be sure everything's "kosher", because there's been quite a flurry of activity recently. Thanks again :> Doc talk 20:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Uhhhh, I think somebody made a mistake[15]: you might want to re-add your comment! I was about to respond to it and was like, "Where'd it go?" Cheers :> Doc talk 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I put that down to an oopsie, possibly in trying to figure out the edit-conflict screen, which I always avoid by copying my text and starting all over, Looks like a fun conversation down there, maybe I should read it. :) Anyway, answer away! (If you still remember it :) Franamax (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Heehee yeah - when you get that group going crazy on a thread, it's usually an instant zoo :> Raul was trying to get his piece in, because someone will close that one down soon, I'd bet. 3...2...1... ;> Doc talk 01:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Conduct

Thread moved from my Talk page in keeping with my policy stated at the top of that page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi CA3, I've been mulling this contribution of yours for a while now. I've resolved that your leading wording concerning a registered editor constitutes a personal attack and a continuation of the behaviour for which you were previously blocked. You may disagree with this assessment, however I intend to block you from editing if you repeat such. Please ask here if you need clarification on the terms, but at the same time please do not comment on other editors as you have done in the noted diff. Ideally we would conduct this entire conversation here on your own talk page, but I do recoognize your exploit of that fun dance where you insist that discussion of your own behaviour must happen anywhere other than on your own talk page. Of course I'll just copy everything back here to keep things coherent. Just for interest though, I (and many others) do keep an eye out for changes on others' talk pages and respond quickly, so it's not strictly necessary as I will be watching here. Franamax (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As WP:BLP states: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

CA3, what in the world does WP:BLP have to do with this? Certainly it's not relevant to material describing an anonymous Wikipedia editor. Sorry if I'm a little dense, but I don't follow. -- Scray (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It possibly has to do with the editor being targeted using their real name to edit here, and maybe a suggestion that his comment should be removed as a BLP violation. I dunno, and no, BLP is really not the relevant policy here. I am talking about creating a negative environment for another editor (WP:HARASS) and continuing disruptive behaviour, both of which are reasons for blocking. Sure, I can try to fit BLP violations in there too, but there's only so much room on the form you fill out to block. So long as CA3 stops the behaviour, it doesn't matter what policy governs. Franamax (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought Cuddlyable3 was referring to the cited characterization by Steve Baker on Steve's talk page of recent RD-talk-page contributors as a long list of disruptive types, without even providing a WP:RS for that characterization. But, if so, I mean if that was what Cuddlyable3 mentioned WP:BLP for, then quoting that characterization on the RD-talk-page was not doing what WP:BLP says to do about it (see above). Otherwise, I'm not sure what he meant. But I think he should probably try to be extra-special nice and accommodating while he is still coming off his still-recent blocks for being disruptive in the way it was agreed at the time he was. Hi Franamax, thanks for use of your talk page for this, have a nice day! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Blanket allusions to disruptive editors is not a BLP violation. It may be other things, but not a BLP problem. References to pseudonyms such as "WikiDao" and "Franamax" are not BLP violations. If you say "Franamax is a jerk" it will make me cry, but I'm a Wikipedia editor, not a living person. :) Franamax (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)