User talk:RobertMfromLI/Archives/2011/June

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Rob. I've watched this discussion for the past week without new developments or opportunities to provide useful input. If the discussion is still active, I can continue keeping an eye on it. Let me know. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think someone in particular is taking a bit of a break from those articles. His userpage may indicate a sorta COI in his beliefs, which may be in conflict with the article... If things pick up again or get out of hand, I'll drop you a note. Thanks again Fast! (and guessing my explanation of policy was close enough to being on the mark?) Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

All right, sounds great. Have a good one. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologise if you took that last remark personally, i was actually referring to others who I believe are marginalising users on the page and were at the forefront of getting Anglo Pyramidologist banned, a friend of mine who contributed a lot quite recently. Im glad you think the article is in a contentious state and am please you are willing to act as a mediator, previous attempt to come to a compromise over the info box simply ended in banning as already explained. I presumed as you undid a reversion from a IP address account that you were in favour of the info box update, I apologise again if this is not the case and accept your decision upon the matter but please be aware that myself and Anglo Pyramidologist did all we could to come to a compromise over the issue before he was banned as the history of the page will vindicate. I am willing to work with anybody who is in favour of unbiased reform but unfortunately as the page will show there are those who like the page the way it is and are willing to do anything for it to remain so. Thanks U6j65 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I didnt take your remarks personally, but on the other side of the coin, I dont want anyone else to take them personally either. There are other editors who have diverging viewpoints, and it would be a shame if they feel your remarks are directed at them. Anyway, Pryamid was blocked for rule violations... hence, you may have noticed, I keep stressing civility and the revert/war guidelines. It would also be a shame if other editors got blocked for violating such things when they've got good viewpoints to bring to the article. Hence, I'm suggesting civility, including everyone (not just you) leaving no ambiguous "attacks" or "incivility" that the wrong editors may assume is directed at them - I'm sure you can see it won't help any, especially on such a heated topic.

Anyway, I'm hoping I can make a difference on that page... though I am pretty sure there will be a few who end up not liking me; I meant what I said about filing reports for the first (and each and every) violation of the page's revert rule and such. Hopefully that will lead to everyone realizing it's time to collaborate. And hopefully that will get everyone to realize that there are multiple viewpoints on this, and all such relevant viewpoints need to be expressed in the article. I think that's the major perspective that's lacking. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the history you will find that the editor community here is more than open to properly referenced material, but not to edit warring, insertion of material from the BNP web site (other than when wikipedia rules allow it) etc. There are several editors with a far right perspective on wikipedia and who have never been at any risk of being banned as they have simply followed the rules and I'm sorry ROb but I can't see any evidence that editors here are unwilling to collaborate. U6j65, you were not threatened, you were warned for edit warring over a period of time when your views had not gained consensus on the talk page. If you were not happy with that then there are a range of remedies available to you. Given that you had already been warned I could simply have lodged a formal report with a request for a block, I took the view that a final warning was a better approach.--Snowded ^TALK 04:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did look at the history, but I suspect what you do not realize is that multiple of the anons you all have been battling are experienced editors refusing to log in so as not to suffer repercussions. I know who a couple of them are already. So, though you may suspect you do not have a problem with editors revert warring, it may turn out looking differently with that taken into account. Hopefully that clears things up a bit.

Regardless, the bigger issue was making everyone happy in feeling it's balanced. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If there has been sock puppetry then you should report it --Snowded ^TALK 04:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

See above on this page for one example (and the BNP talk page for the related discussion). And yes, most editors involved stuck to the exact "letter of the law" - but in effect created a slow-mo edit war in the last few days (which is filled with "Undid..." and "revert..."). But honestly, I'd rather hash things out to simply get the article to a point where everyone can live with it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD is both the letter and the spirit of the law Rob. After editing the article for a year or so I don't think you will get to the position where the BNP supporters/party members will be happy as we have had a succession of them over time. All of them (several now blocked) have made direct edits to the article based on BNP positions without supporting sources. They also tend to see WP:NPOV as saying that all views should be equally represented regardless of the sources used. However good luck, I'll wait to see what proposals are made. --Snowded ^TALK 04:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, BRD. Well aware of BRD... what about BRRRRRD? ;-) You know... 29th to 30th, in direct violation of the editing restriction? By an "anon"? (who was only 3 of those R's). There's more recently as well of course. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The article suffers from long term vandalism from time to time. The pattern is that a pro or anti BNP edit is made, rejected on the talk page and then edit warred. Most experienced editors on the page will, as it comes up on their watch revert to the consensus version. I note that you chose to revert to the non-consensus position which I find surprising as in effect you were encouraging those editors who were refusing to work on the talk page. It also makes your suggestion that you could act as a mediator questionable. If you think 86.183.62.57 is a sock, then an SPA should be made. All of that said, I await any concrete proposal to change the article, if its properly supported by reliable sources. The edit against consensus (which you reverted to) is not so supported. Oh, and other that the recent freeze I can't see any edit restriction such as 1rr in place --Snowded ^TALK 05:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No edit restrictions show up except the current one (fullp to June 7th). I don't think 86... is a sock... read above one section, where after figuring out who it was, I asked them to log in. They finally did to respond to me (on this page) after claiming to not have an account just a little earlier (on the BNP talk page). As for my revert, in what way is the infobox not part of the article, and thus bound by the FAQ restriction on the article? In all other such editing restrictions pertaining to the article, it's meant the article and everything in it. If there was some finer point hashed out in an archived discussion that I missed, then I'll apologize for missing it. But, every other editor being in agreement that the FAQ "restriction" applied - except the "anon" who reverted it 3 times. Here is the text from the relevant part of the talkpage discussion:

If you read the (FAQ) section at the top of this page it states that "These caveats to such labels must be acknowledged in the article", at currnet this is not the case and the article must be ammended slightly to comply with wikipedia code of conduct, I draw attention to the solutions thread above, (talk)1:01 pm, 29 May 2011, last Sunday (3 days ago) (UTC−4)

Ooops, no sig

Refers to article body only not infobox. There have been several discussions about this and there has never been a consensus to give undue weight to a fringe viewpoint by including it in the infobox. It is up to you to gain consensus for inclusion. 86.183.62.57 (talk)6:44 pm, 30 May 2011, last Monday (1 day ago) (UTC−4)

Ooops, refused to log in

Hence, my revert. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well agreement to any caveat should take place on the talk page. Also if (and I mean if) a caveat is needed given the sources and material elsewhere in the article then its nature also needs to be agreed. The clumsy "they say this others say that" was not agreed, As I say, open to proposals --Snowded ^TALK 06:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the page has come to a stalemate as expected, I just have a couple of questions then hopefully we can move on, (1) is it against wiki policy to have caveat inside a infobox? and (2) Are you allowed to tell me why Anglo Pyramidologist was banned? thanks U6j65 (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

We'll get to resolving the stalemate soon...

1. Define caveat. Generally, no, unless it's because equal or substantial weight is given (via secondary reliable sources) for such. On this particular issue, I don't know. Please elaborate, and I'll give you my opinion...
2. It's all in is ANI report. Go to WP:ANI and search for his name. IF I remember correctly, he violated various editing restrictions imposed for previous issues. Simple procedural thing...

ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The original caveat on the page that you reverted from the ISP address above, its displayed in the discussion section about halfway down and generally just to inform the user that the BNP deny some of the accusations that are in the info box, Snowded is arguing that it should not be included as it is stated in the article, but other do want it included, I am willing to relent and move on if somebody I genially believe is unbiased makes a decision. The article has to move on and we cant argue for ever, although i have no doubt that other users will raise the issue in the future. U6j65 (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Usually, the infobox portrays the most commonly held position, not a combination of all positions. The lede portrays a summary of the article sections, giving due weight to the sections (in some cases, that means no mention of a subject in the article, for instance if it's a one or two line blurb about a specific issue or topic), and the remainder of the article gets used to expound on all of that (and sometimes more). So, in this, I believe Snowded is correct. It's kinda like on band/musician articles, where a genre or two may be listed in the infobox - while in the article itself, it may go into more depth on other positions and list a couple additional genres with supporting citations. In both cases, the infobox is pretty much just that... an infobox to portray a subset of stats of what's generally believed to be the most commonly held position, while the article body/main will go into more detail, including criticism/opposition/etc sections containing more information that's generally not listed in the infobox. Another good example are the various articles on religion. There are some sects of various religions that a decent number of people (but by far, not a majority) consider to be a cult. The infobox portrays the most commonly held belief, listing them under their parent religion umbrella, but mentions nothing about them being a cult. Now, deeper into the article (usually in the criticism section), there will be a section/paragraph/couple sentences where it will mention "(some group) considers (this religion) as a cult, because of (whatever reasons; divergence from mainstream beliefs, practices, whatever)^(citations)"

Hope that explains the practices as they are generally used for such things. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok Like I nsaid im willing to move on because we just cant argue for ever, the most commonly held position for most peole is that they are politically ignorant and probably believe what the more cunning person tells them, or whats written on the wiki page. As for the sources used user:Alexandre8 has been heavily critical of them on the talk page after research but again it will be ne impossable to agree upon them, as i think i read a user write 'wiki dosent do fair just viability', thanks.U6j65 (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought I was being clear in this. Let me expound on what I said (above any anywhere else). Whenever I am talking about content, I always mean "within the Wikipedia policies and guidelines". So, for instance, above, you should read it as:

• "...the infobox portrays the most commonly held position, per reliable sources, given due weight by the prepoderance of reliable sources, properly cited from secondary sources in most cases (except where directly attributing quotes and rare other instances where primary or tertiary sources are suitable), regardless of your/mine/anyone's POV, and regardless of the truth - and always worded, sourced and portrayed per the rest of Wikipedia's Rules, Guidelines and Policies"...

Assume everything I say regarding content has such tacked onto it. To summarize, here's the deal; if the most commonly held position by secondary sources deemed reliable for such a matter state "The BNP are Martians", then that is what the article (and infobox) must say and what one must give that the most weight. Period. Full stop. No matter what truths you, myself or anyone else think, know or can figure out on our own.

Second note: in matters such as this, it's what "the world as a whole holds to be their majority position" (as per reliable sources, yada, yada, yada) - what they consider themselves holds a lesser relevance. Hitler thought he was a great man doing great things for Germany... we instead go by what the world (via reliable... blah, blah, blah) think about him. Yes, it's an extreme example - but that's not what matters. Policies and guidelines apply in all such cases. What the article subjects think get dealt with in the article in a different fashion - but (generally) not as the tone or major content for it.

Hope that explains things. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, RobertMfromLI. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 03:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rob. Based on recent events, it seems like the Future Steel Buildings article might be leaning towards deletion. :( If this does happen, can I take up on your offer to userfy the article for the time being, and improve upon it in the future? I'm not sure how to userfy the page myself. I'm probably going to take some time off for a short time since working on this article has been so exhausting, but I'm still keen on improving this article when I get back my mojo again. Thank you so much for all your help over these past two weeks. Saracates (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates

Hiya! Will do. Keep in mind, you can always invite contributors to work on it on the userspace version - so, you don't have to go it alone, even with it copied there. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's here for you: [1] Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, Rob! Saracates (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates

Hi Robert. I am fed up with the bloated, self-important pile of fancruft that is the Awards section on the Iron Maiden article. I posted a suggestion on the talk page last week, which has garned 1 reply to date. Would you care to enter an opinion there? Basically, I would like to trim the section right back and leave the awards in the appropriate arcticle. Many thanks! Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 08:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am pretty sure that if I dig, I can find a few more to add to that section... oh... wait... nevermind. :-) As much as I love Iron Maiden (more than food some days... but not more than coffee), I agree. Will comment there. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello all! I will be away filming another episode of Star Trek: New Voyages until Jul 1, 2011. I'll have sporadic, limited internet access (and will be hellishly busy), so, if I was helping you with something and you really need something, please find one of my helpful talk page stalkers or a friendly admin who can help you out... otherwise, post here and I will get back to you as soon as I can. Optionally, if it's me you really need, you can send me an email via the email tool... those manage to find their way to my phone pretty quickly.

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! You have been invited to take part in the Bacon Challenge 2012. In case you don't know or need a refresher, the Bacon Challenge is an annual celebration of bacon on Wikipedia in which editors come together to help create, expand, and improve Wikipedia's coverage of bacon. The event lasts all the way through National Pig Day 2012, giving participants plenty of time to work at their pleasure. In addition to the Bacon Challenge is the Bacon WikiCup 2012, a side event to the Challenge in which all bacon-related contributions done by those participating in the Challenge are submitted and scored by the scorekeeper (me) based on the scoring chart. At the end of the Challenge, the user with the most points in the Bacon WikiCup will win a shiny trophy for their userpage. In addition, the users who score the highest in specific categories (not yet finalized, but the categories include most image uploads, most article creations, most DYK submissions, and more) will win barnstars. Finally, all participants will receive a medal. While the awards are nice, in the end, the important thing is to have fun and enjoy what we're all here for, which is improving Wikipedia.

If you decide to participate, great! You may add your name to the participants list at the main page of the Bacon Challenge 2012, and pick up the userbox for your userpage if you desire. Signing up for the Challenge will also automatically enter you into the Bacon WikiCup. If you don't wish to participate, that's fine too - maybe next year! In the meantime, if you know anyone who might also be interested in participating, feel free to invite them! The Challenge is open to anyone and accepts participants at any time, so feel free to let anyone who might be interested know.

Note that I, the scorekeeper of the Bacon WikiCup, will be on vacation starting on the 18th of June all the way up until the 5th of July. I will have limited access to the internet, so I may or may not be able to score users' contributions during this time. Sorry for any delay in scoring (but since the Challenge lasts for more than half a year, there's no rush, right? (= ).

I'm looking forward to another fun, successful year. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)