User talk:TenOfAllTrades

Talk archives
2004 and January to March 2005 April and May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August and September 2005 October and November 2005 December 2005 to February 2006 March to May 2006 June to August 2006 September and October 2006 November 2006 to February 2007 March 2007 to January 2008 February 2008 to November 2008 December 2008 to February 2009 March 2009 to October 2009

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Reference Desk archiving interval

There's a discussion running on the RD talk page about decreasing the archiving and transclusion thresholds to reduce the page size, perhaps to as few as four days. I don't care one way or the other, but I'd like to make sure any consensus includes input from some long-time regulars, so I'm dropping this note on the talk pages of a few that pop to mind. (I hope no one feels this is improper canvassing.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding "banned editor"

I'm a bit confused about your recent edit to Gerontology, for which you referenced "rv banned editor". I assume this is because the original poster, Shustov, has been indefinitely blocked. However, I'm confused why his/her block would make any content s/he uploaded unusable. Assumedly if there's a problem with the content, it should be deleted from Wikipedia. Otherwise, it seems reasonable to use it in Wikipedia articles. Is this a flawed assumption? Many thanks for any clarification you can provide. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 15:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, thanks for the clarification. I'm not a fan of empty self-promotions, so I can certainly empathize with the cause. Sounds like quite a large job to monitor, though! Anyhow, I've put up a new, related picture on the gerontology page that I think is equally, if not more, appropriate for the tone of the page. Thanks again! —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 15:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews/IAR and all that

I cannot explain the point I was making in just a few lines. The basic problem is that Brews' topic ban is so huge that one has to be careful with this. Physics is a huge field and Brews is an engineering professor. So, his topic ban would be similar to a topic ban on all politics pages for some editor who is a politics professor for having made trouble on one or two pages. If such a topic ban would mean that nothing even remotely related to politics could be mentioned at all, it would lead to problems.

I've been in contact with Brews for a while now and from everything I told him it should be clear that I am not now saying that Brews should violate his topic ban. Brews, I think, could be persuaded to work on wiki policy. Now, we have to understand that the real reason why Brews ended up in trouble leading to his topic ban was that Brews has/had a tendency to dominate discussions, to argue more or less the same point over and over again against consensus.

So, from a pragmatic POV, one would have to see if Brews is not going to dominate discussions in the same way as he did on the speed of light page. That's where the real potential for disruption lies. As I made clear a few times, the physics nature of the speed of light discussions had little to do with the problems. Now, on the NOR talk page, the regulars there asked Brews, me and other participants to give concrete examples of problems, and Brews gave a link to a relevant previous discussion that happened to be physics related. But he did not re-open that old discussion. Then, given that we don't want never ending discussions, I don't think that was such a bad thing.

This is one aspect of what I really mean by IAR right now: Brews sticking to his topic ban to the point of not even being allowed to give that concrete example, would not have been helpful at all. And I think that Admins like you, not Brews himself, should be the ones to invoke IAR under such circumstances.

Another aspect of IAR is different and has nothing to do with Brews. I explained that on the NOR talk page. That has to do with local consensus being able to overrule core policies. That can then be used to make better guidelines that would not have the necessary support to become official policies. Nevertheless editors of certain articles can always decide by consensus to stick to such unofficial guidelines.

It is here that I can see Brews contributing constructively. Brews seems to have a lot of time and energy, so he could draft alternative versions of the NOR, V, Synth, etc. policies that would be more suitable for some science articles. You then don't have endless discussions. Also, when he does that then we should not put all his contributions under the microscope to see if maybe something in there can be construed as being related to physics in some way. That's then another appeal to IAR that the Admins should stick to, i.m.o.

So, in conclusion, I would say that in these cases it should be the Arbitrators and Administrators who should invoke IAR to let Brews contribute in a constructive way. I'm not saying that Brews should make trouble by violating the topic ban in a non-essential way and then invoke IAR himself. Also, Brews should not shoehorn whatever else he is doing in order to violate his topic ban (e.g. he should not correct typos on physics pages). Count Iblis (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It was bad enough that you tend to ignore things that people (including me) have told you, and that you tend to repeat the same arguments over and over again. Why on earth are you expecting me to listen to you now that you've moved on to implying that I'm a vandal, troll, or malefactor? Let me be very explicit. I don't want to hear from you about Brews ohare any more, unless it's to tell me that he's spent a reasonable span of time – let's say at least a month – making uncontroversial, productive contributions to Wikipedia. Until you can tell me that with a straight face, I am extraordinarily unlikely to be persuaded that his restrictions should be relaxed — and there's no reason for you to continue to try to argue with me. Period. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I quoted Rickk who said that: "There is a fatal flaw in the system. Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect", and that clearly means those troublemakers who get off with a minor slap on the wrist. Count Iblis (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Without fanfare

Hi, re your comment about my edit to wp:sock, may I draw your attention to the thread that I first started on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#restoring an example. As well as my edit summary when I restored that example. ϢereSpielChequers 23:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't see that edit on the talk page. Still, I think it was rather deceptive to omit any mention (at the time) of exactly why you decided to add that passage in. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Essay contributions

I'd appreciate some further feedback about your comments. The essay has been modified considerably. I hope you can oblige. Brews ohare (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

typo

Hi Ten, seems you made a little typo here: You point to this diff twice. I'm sure the first referral should be to this diff instead. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Fixing now.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Page move

Hello can you help with a page move Airport Express Train to Flytoget. reason

Article was called Flytoget when it received good article status, pagename was moved without discussion. Flytoget is used as english language name (english version of company website, general reporting etc) Discussion on talk page reveals no strong reason for the original page move. Also "Airport Express Train" requires disambiguations as per Airport Express Train (disambiguation) - specifically with respect to HongKong airport train service

Basically a page move needs reverting, I have the disambiguation page. Discussion of page move (to original status) is here Talk:Flytoget#Flytoget.

Shortfatlad (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why you would specifically ask me to make this page move for you — as far as I know I have no experience in the topic area or knowledge of the discussion. In any case, I'm not prepared to barge in and impose a solution on what appears to be some sort of content dispute on the basis of the very equivocal discussion that you linked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Are you exempt from the policy of NOT editing editors' comments on talk pages ?? I can live with what I wrote ... it should have been left in place. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Signpost?

Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost. P.S. Good point about WP:DICK. - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Thanks for this breath of fresh air. Keep it up, and may get promoted to 'jack' someday. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Building consensus on copyright issue

You were involved in a discussion regarding the use of copyrighted architectural designs on Wikipedia pages and I'm trying to find community consensus on a gray area. If you can, please let me know at what point you feel these images should be replaced here. Thank you so much! DR04 (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RHMED

Please allow this editor acces to his talk - at least for a while. Pedro :  Chat  21:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think that would be wise. He was being deliberately disruptive to prove a point, and being incredibly abusive in his comments to do it. After he was blocked, he was continuing to use his talk page to taunt and soapbox, rather than finding something productive to do. If he regrets his conduct and wishes to request an unblock, then there are several avenues open for his to do so. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh well. Incidentally, Malleus does not care FWIW. I'm not fussed either way. Pedro :  Chat  21:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Advice?

Hi - I'm involved in a situation I'm not quite sure what to do about. There's a long standing content dispute involving several editors, including me, that has mostly been confined to a talk page. So far, so good. But one of the editors on the "other side" views me as the "enemy" and has been become increasingly disruptive (on the talk page), to the point of even driving away another editor (one he basically agrees with!). Since I'm involved, I can't directly do anything as an admin and any time I bring up any policy related issue this editor seems to think I'm only doing this as part of the content issue. I have mostly tried to ignore the continuing bad behavior, and there is a pending mediation cabal case, but the behavior seems to be worsening. Any ideas? -- Rick Block (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So, do you think asking an individual uninvolved admin to look into this is the best approach? I'm actually asking about approaches (meta level), not for your individual assistance. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close de-adminship process proposal

Hey sorry for the response, it wasn't very sporting of me. TBH I was making fun of the proposal in general. It is only fair that an attempt to shutter it should be cloaked in somewhat bureaucratic language. The proposal is nothing if not byzantine. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC COI

That clown is an admin? Sheesh. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well at least he isn't on arbcomm. Assuming we mean the same person William M. Connolley (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Does he have a history on these articles, or is he just gullible? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Brews at AE

If you don't mind, it would add clarity to your post at WP:AE[1] if you preceded it with Oppose. Some people scan the supports and opposes first. Or, would you object to my adding it?—Finell 23:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Finell for continuity):

Re: [2]. Yes, I would mind – very much – if you decided to turn my comment into a vote. One of the reasons why the arbitration enforcement process is so damnably unpleasant is because of the lining up and taking sides, coupled to the assumption that people reading the discussion aren't bright enough to get past the first word. In my experience, the posts to AE (and to other boards seeking admin action) which are preceded by bold text tend to be from the angry fringe, and tend to be accorded less weight than the comments which simply make their point clearly and concisely. Heck, I'd prefer to avoid having bullets in front of each point, because it prevents the use of paragraph breaks in comments — but those were unfortunately present when I commented.

If you don't mind, it would add nuance depth to your comment at WP:AE if you didn't precede it with a bold vote text. Competent, neutral individuals read the entire discussion before jumping to a conclusion. Or would you object to my removing it? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You make very cogent points. I am certainly aware that we don't vote in discussions. I still think that a bolded heading (a run-in sidehead in typographer's terminology) is an aid to the reader, but I respect your reasons for not doing so, and may reconsider my practice in the future. I never suggested that I would make such a change to your, or anyone else's, comment without your authorization. I was tempted to remove all the bullets, but I restrained myself.—Finell 10:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai just scolded us (not you) for the boldface, and for exactly the reason you gave. Therefore, I acknowledge:

• You told me so.
• You were right, and I was wrong.—Finell 02:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not interested in Dialing things back.

The title says it all. My comment was within the guidelines for inclusion, maybe if the brews target practice is finished I can move on. If the enforcement requests are dumb expect them to be treated that way. I don't like cheap moves like that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Curious inquiry

Given this can I assume that you would have voted Oppose to this? As an experienced editor you know full well that the {{Why?}} is not to point out weasel words as your edit summary implies, but more importantly, there is no evidence that I implied any weaselry was afoot. Your edit summary, goes on to state the footnote links directly to the case page. WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP discourage us from an extensive discussion and analsyis of the Arb Case in this article., indicating that you either fail to understand why I put the tag on there, or intended to denigrate my statement by your action. Have you read the ArbCom case? Do you know why the action was taken? Couldn't you have, instead, replaced the tag with the phrase "for violation of Wikipedia policy"? cf. this Would that have been "extensive discussion" in your opinion? The way it reads right now it sounds embarrassing like a cover-up, not of any misdeeds by the editor/admin, but of backroom decisions made by Wikipedia. It's clear from what precedes that sentence that he's clearly violated Wikipedia policy, so I don't think stating that that was the actual rationale in any violates any tenet of WP:BLP, nor of any other policy or guideline. Regards, Tomer^talk 05:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Starting with {{Why?}}, no I was unaware that the effect of template had been changed, thanks for the update. On the subject of my making assumptions, if you reread, I did not make any assumptions, I asked whether such an assumption would be valid. I asked "Why?" because I know the subject has been an area of contention, and felt asking the question rather than wading in was a better-advised course of action. As for the subject in question, the way I read the ArbCom decision, it was not a result of how WMC "handling a[n] ... editor" with whom he was in dispute, but rather that he abused his administrator tools to do so. Finally, whatever your personal views are, biased characterizations of me (as you did in your edit summary and again on my talk page), or Abd or any other editor are unnecessary to open discussion, and I would ask you to desist from such activity in any future discussion, at least with me. Regards, Tomer^talk 06:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Bureacracy

Despite the tone of WP:BUREAUCRACY, there is something to be said for respecting procedure. WP:AIR exists specifically so procedure can be thrown out in "duh, of course we should suspend the rules" cases, but Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_28#Climategate scandal is not such a case, as evidenced by the number of objections to the early closure. At one point, WP:IAR or one of its related pages said something like "you don't know if you applied it correctly until after the fact." Had there been only 1 or 2 objections, then IAR would've been the right thing to do. I count 6 relists and 11 endorsements, but I could be slightly off. Of the 6 relists, the article author provides several non-procedural reasons to relist. Another editor says you should relist procedurally because it will be better for the project if you do, even if the article winds up being deleted anyways. I agree, but several other editors and the deleting admin, Rd232, do not. Also, Rd232 and possibly several other editors seem to believe that certain types of forks should be eligible for speedy deletion. This may mean that the newly created speedy criterion WP:A10 needs to be re-worked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Acharya S

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Acharya S. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, TenOfAllTrades. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, sorry if I drug you into this inadvertently. I did a survey of the pages and obviously dredged your name up by accident. tedder (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEARS

You just have to imagine me being drunk shouting that in your face. (Note, I'm not drunk) but I wanted to send you a happy new years video which is coincidently my the song from which I got my username.! Happy Wishes to you in 2010.[[3]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your tone at Community de-Adminship - WP:CDADR

RE here (and above it too). Tone it down please - you wouldn't have written half of that if you had levelled yourself first. You could perhaps take your own advice on where respect might lie. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA

That question to Coren had no relationship at all to the issue you cited regarding WR. I have repeatedly expressed regret for that thoughtless comment—say I have bad judgment if you like, but please don't accuse me of standing by that comment or rehashing it. Far from wishing to rehash it, I would dearly love to never hear about it again. Everyking (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I had forgotten what exactly I asked Coren there. Now that I look back at it, I see that it did concern that WR issue—I was referring to an accusation, which was made earlier that year, that I had played some kind of active role in the situation beyond that one wrongheaded comment. I think you can understand that it would be upsetting if someone wrongly blamed you for instigating or, even worse, actually conducting harassment. Everyking (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

PA concern and collapse

Hi, I have addressed your PA concerns and removed the collapse. Let me know if I missed something. Providing a warning on a talk page for discussion is constructive. Your final warning to me seems inappropriate now that I seek to correct things without facing an enforcement action. Now, I invite your comment on grieving enforcement in the articles, since you seem to have implied that it may as well applied to me too. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Was there something else you didn't like about the changes I made [4] and you reverted? Apologies for mixing up with my IP and no edit summary. I would like to keep the talk open for it's stated purpose to help prevent greifing disruptions. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to correct your concerns again [5] so as to restore civility. I would appreciate if you would remove the collapse box and your final warning. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

TOAT, I find your actions in this matter highly inappropriate. Please take a step back. ATren (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)