User talk:Opabinia regalis/Archive 15

This 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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Thoughts??

I would much rather see porn bios questioned for encycopedic value than academics but that's just me. I also find it a bit confusing when the content of a BLP is criticized for being promotional because it may include a list of honors, achievements and recognition of the work. Isn't the aforementioned a substantial part of notability?

What notable research is not funded in part by commercial interests via grants, and when successful, did not result in commercialization? Why shouldn't we consider the work of an academic that led to new developments in their field of research worthy of inclusion in WP just because the local newspaper or MSM didn't consider it strong enough as bait & click headline material? Times have changed. If anything, I can see relaxing ~~some GNG~~ some of the academic specialty guidelines a bit (while tightening things like sports figures and porn if space in WP is an issue). We certainly don't want to exclude the pioneer women in research and academia, especially women of color, the latter being a bias that is not gender specific, and has resulted in forgotten/ignored notability.

I'm of the mind that readers use encyclopedias to gather as much factual information about a person as they possible can, especially with regards to professional accomplishments, results of the work, and how well it was received based on the honors received and recognition by peers. The information independent sources are willing to include are typically ~~based on~~ determined by word count restrictions, and a publication's need to fill the blank space created by unsold advertising. Is WP concerned about "space" and/or "word count"?

Also, encyclopedic notability is not necessarily "fame" yet some deletionists grade noteworthiness on that basis, expecting to media coverage on steroids to qualify an academic and/or researcher for inclusion. I was under the impression that potential libel issues were the primary reason we cite independent reliable sources or risk opening the flood gates to potential libel issues, as does stating opinions in Wiki voice. I don't think independent media coverage should be the only gage we use to measure notability because doing so hinders WP's goal to compile the sum of all human knowledge. In fact, we should probably exercise extreme caution about citing nothing but MSM because of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, and the changes in the NDAA, which dramatically altered the reliability factor of MSM; the line between reliable news and propaganda is non-existent. [1] ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a lot to chew on. Just to clarify a couple of things, there is a lot of notable research that is not funded by commercial interests and is not realistically commercializable. Most basic research in molecular biology and biomedicine in the US is funded through NIH grants, as is a large amount of clinical research. (In other sciences the NSF, DOE, DOD, etc. provide a lot of funding through similar mechanisms.) There are also large nonprofits and some companies funding academic research, and there is basic research being done by companies in-house. But most basic academic research, at least in biology, is not funded by commercial interests. Most NIH grant proposals will emphasize the potential for human health impact from the proposed research program, but aren't intended to lead directly to a commercial product. When the product of academic research does have commercial potential, it can get complicated - I don't know what the success rate of academic "spinoff" companies is, but it's not as high as you'd think. The degree of support for attempts to do this varies a lot by institution. Our article on technology transfer is, unsurprisingly, pretty bad, but that's the place to start for how large US research institutions usually work with potentially commercializable research products.

In addition to the possible-commercialization angle, institutions have reputational interests in touting the successes of their researchers, so they issue press releases and so forth about the latest discoveries made at the institution, grants received, awards accepted, etc. Since basic research is often kind of boring and abstruse, what gets the press-release treatment is not all that well correlated with what makes an impact in the field, so we can expect that general-interest media will not really reflect academic influence well. That's a form of systemic bias in the media, but I don't think it's closely connected to the issues you raise about propaganda and media influence. For one thing, I doubt even military propaganda could make any of my research sound interesting ;)

Closer to home, one reason to be careful of sourcing is libel, but another is plumped-up claims found in non-independent sources. My experience with academic bios on Wikipedia is that people often get mixed up about this - e.g. the official bio from the major academic society the subject was once the president of, or an interview with the subject in Nature, will get criticized as "not independent" even though both are reliable and are strong indicators of notability. I won't even get started on the people who are notable in part because they've been recognized for overcoming barriers to participation by underrepresented groups. Aaargh.

But yeah, let's start with the porn stars :) Or the "professional athletes" who played one professional game. And mostly the eleventy-billion non-notable businesses and aspiring businesspeople who think they need a "profile" here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI - I understood everything you wrote. 🤓 AND....I learned a few things in the process. It speaks volumes, and I thank you. I will now enjoy happy hour and spend a bit of time mulling over what I just learned, especially considering that I'm of the mind that an academic, after spending a good part of his/her life teaching/studying/researching/documenting marine life behavior, suddenly discovers that squid can fly deserves a BLP in WP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Did somebody say happy hour? Count me in! OK, Sunday night is an odd time for happy hour, but I'll take it! ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We've run out of admins...

again...

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_28#Template:Main_section

<3

Primefac (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Who's next for the admin factory? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Might be Femenist, Frietjes, and/or Andy Mabbet available, but I'm not sure any of them are so inclined! Primefac (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You've got email :)

Hey there! Sorry for writing in English. I just sent you an email about your participation in the Training Modules pilot testing. Thanks! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Kitten IOU

I saw the post that was here, and I don't want to add to the notification pile, so I'll just leave this kitten here as an IOU :)

Brought tears to my eyes - seriously. Takes a kitten lover to know one. Thanks so much. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :) And I got to go look through the commons category consisting entirely of pictures of kittens! Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2

While I did not add additional comments since January 2017, I had been following the Acne FAC. I think it could be a FA someday, but still needs significant work. As I am somewhat semi-retired from Wikipedia, next time it goes up for a FAC, should you think of me, please email me and I will post a review again. Thank you! (just fyi: I am putting a similar note on a few user pages) --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't the nominator and am not a regular reviewer, so this is probably better directed toward someone else more likely to remember ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Acne listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acne. Since you had some involvement with the Acne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping

Hello, Opabinia regalis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Yash^talk stalk 20:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Replied! Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Stalker question

Talk page stalkers! Is there such a thing as a user script to unblock a bunch of accounts? I know, not the most common use case... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ribonuclease H, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Model system. 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) 10:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping

If your ears are burning, I'm sort of talking about you here. I didn't originally ping you because I honestly thought I understood the nature of the disagreement and expected a simple "oops yes I misread". However, the central issue turned out to be different than I had originally thought—given that I ended up disagreeing with you, it is only fair that I notify you.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Cats

What is this (and what follows)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Those are awfully cute kitties :) But I have no idea about that diff, sorry. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I just now made the connection between kitties and category links... wow do I need coffee ;) Still no idea on the diff, though.... Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I read it like the user thought he restored vandalism. So when it returned, I restored it because he is not around often. I usually avoid touching other people's user pages but I only restored to his version. That was not well received. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I sort of get it, apparently while I wasn't looking some people got into an argument about whether or not user pages should have fake joke categories because oh god I can't read that why would anyone spend their tiny allocation of time on this earth worrying about nonexistent user page joke categories aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh... Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not only that, also spend considerable time telling me to return to the better me, just because I see the same ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Last act ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

But if they all came back, would you have to delete the category? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I would do so and rejoice! Alakzi, Br'er Rabbit, Elen of the Roads, Hillbillyholiday, too many others. - I get sloppy in missing a second or third time, such as Tim riley, but he is sort of back again if you look ;) - Thank goodness, the list of the returned is longer than that of the missed! - I have a woman on DYK on IWD, DYK? and the hook mentions Hope of Women (in German), matching our topic nicely, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

ps: I would want the category deleted because I preferred it red. Same thing happened to my other red one, Category:Wikipedians who took the liberty to stay. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither of us should be editing today ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Too late: I had a woman on the main page, but more people looked at the opera, with "hope of women" in the title, probably - I am afraid - looking for the murderer part, or scandal. I wrote about another, and nominated the hope and a third for DYK. Always better with women ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hope of women is on the Main page again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Murderer? I hope not! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

More pleasant: today's FA in C minor, not by me, but I reviewed and nominated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I had reason to deal with a different hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

teh cat responese made me smile --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, two years? Has it been that long?? I want a refund on any time spent reading ANI. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

From whom? The swamp is voluntary, and I managed to avoid it, mostly. Once a friend and I were called because we allegedly insulted others, but the admins argued that if these others had nothing to say, we might go home. - FA (as of yesterday, after trembling): with peace and joy I let go. Wish it was true. - Mozart music on the Main page, sadly without the image of a less sugary Wolfgang A. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Empty archives

Empty archives in my talk pages were recreated after Graham87 revived the accidentally deleted revisions. I will work on it. All the replies I do are under the pressure of me being busy in real life too. Real life short of because I have to prepare things for WMCON17 in Berlin that starts in 2 days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I fixed it. Now everything is archived in 6. Very soon normality will come back. I had very low size limit for the bot and it was creating a lot of archives. Nowadays 800k is not a big number for am archive page. Archive 1 is double that size unfortunately but after the recent mistakes I am afraid to normalise that at the moment. I have a lot of people watching my actions lately.I will do it when at some time. Thanks for your comments, Magioladitis (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"All the replies I do are under the pressure of me being busy in real life too." Everytime you said the issue was "fixed" and all that was wrong was my fault anyway, you found the time to get back to your AWB edits instead of actually checking the link I provided to you and reading the posts I took the time to type, instead of just assuming that you knew what I wanted to say and not bothering to do anything about it. Don't play the "boohoo, poor me has no time and is being pressured" card when you had plenty of time to make hundreds of AWB edits while we were discussing the problems and Graham67 was fixing them. Fram (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Graham67 is a a great guy :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. I suppose there aren't many mobile readers in anyone's talk page archives. But the size is a side point. The issue is that you're being - or at least seeming - careless. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Being in wikibreak and attending an official wikimedia event does not mean i won't reply to messages. Still i think i can't contribute anything else in the arbcom case at least in this phase. Magioladitis (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I forgot that there's an event going on. Still, moving these two 2017 threads from archive 4 with 2014-15 messages to archive 6, which appears to be the current one, takes about five seconds, and is definitely both easier and faster than repeating three times that you'll do it later maybe. And their current placement has nothing to do with automated archiving screwups, because you put them in archive 8 and then cut and pasted into archive 4. I suppose there's nothing requiring anyone to keep their archives in chronological order, but what it looks like is an attempt to hide criticism in a hard-to-find place. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Correct if I a wrong (I again cross read the text) but the text I misplaced mainly was positive comments on my work and not criticism. There is no attempt to hide text. It's an attempt to make it easier to browse. I rarely use the search button. I mainly use the browser text search. It's easier for me to search within fewer pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I linked the two threads I was referring to, one of which was Fram's post about the incident that led to his RFAR. I wouldn't call that a "positive comment", but to each their own. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The general 1RR restriction in ARBPIA

User:Opabinia regalis, it has been pointed out to me the New Guidelines (in the section "Motion: ARBPIA" near the bottom of the page). The key part is the sentence underlined in black. Question: Is this to imply that all new edits made since 26 December 2016 in Palestine-Israel articles can be deleted by editors, and they can challenge the editors who put them there in the first place, without the first editors restoring their edits until a new consensus has been reached? If so, you open the door for "abusive editing," that is to say, the new guidelines allow editors to freely delete areas in articles based on their sole judgment and conviction and which edits had earlier been agreed upon by consensus, and that such changes will remain in force until such a time that a new consensus can be reached. As you see, this can be problematic. Second Question: Do the new guidelines also apply to reverts made in articles where a consensus had already been reached before 26 December 2016, or do they only apply to reverts made after 26 December 2016? To avoid future problems arising from this new edict, can I make this one suggestion, namely, that the new guidelines in Palestine-Israel articles be amended to read with this addition: "Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense, or where abuses arise over reverts made in an article where a consensus had already been reached before or after the edict of 26 December 2016 took effect, such editors make themselves liable to disciplinary actions, including blocking."Davidbena (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:ARCA, not on a dozen people's talkpages. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right. It was only later that I saw that there is a current discussion on this subject in the ARBPIA noticeboard. Thanks anyway.Davidbena (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

RFAR about your behavior

I am filing an RFAR about you and your behavior. You should be kicked off of arbcom, desysopped, and banned. That way you will be less tempted to occupy valuable lap space with something stupid like a laptop. I have included a copy of my complaint below.

Misleading the community: Opabinia misleads people about her credentials. She claims to be a Cambrian invertebrate, but I have good evidence that she's really just a regular old red-blooded hairless ape. On the blood thing, I checked. With my claws.
Wikihounding: Every time I manage to make an edit, she reverts it right away. Her behavior has prevented me from contributing to articles in my areas of expertise. I have a lot of edits to make to mouse and Nepeta cataria, for example.
On-wiki harassment: She and her talk-page stalkers regularly post pictures of my family members on her talk page. (Even children! Look!) Sometimes there are even videos of abuse.
Off-wiki harassment: I am a fellow editor and I should not have to put up with this. She posts pictures of me in awkward positions on social media. (I needed to get the red dot, okay??) She won't let me use the computer and physically prevents me from editing by shoving me off the keyboard. She makes fun of me when I make typos, as if it's my fault I don't have opposable thumbs. She sets traps to stop me from editing.
Prior dispute resolution: Nothing I've tried has been successful. I tried sitting on the keyboard and she just shoved me off again. I tried shoving the laptop instead and she blocked me from doing that too. I tried to have a calm adult conversation about our differences and she responded with rude, dismissive comments like "Stop meowing, it's 4am" and "But your bowl is already full!" (For the record, the bowl was not full. And I get up early because I work in destructive testing of toys and household goods, and my shift starts promptly at 5:45am. I have a lot of work to do, unlike lazy dumb sleeping humans who don't seem to care that I'm starving and will die of malnutrition without breakfast right now. Not that lame dry stuff, either. Meat for breakfast, please. No, not that pate stuff either. Chunks or bust. Also I want a taste of your yogurt. And the milk, just give it to me instead of putting it in that gross coffee you drink. And what's that you're doing on the stove? Let me just jump up here on the counter and stick my nose in to... is that cheese you're putting in that omelet? Without sharing? Unacceptable. I'll just be off with this mouthful of, um, I, uh, I haven't got anything in my mouth! ......OK fine, I did swipe some cheese, but now I'm sitting on top of the fridge and you can't do anything about it NYAH NYAH NYAH NOM NOM NOM.)

Erm. Ahem. Anyway. Thank you for listening to the hisstory of my problem. With this dispute unresolved, I feel trapped in purrgatory. Babou 🐱 (meow! 🐾) 21:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome in Bishzilla pocket, little Babou! Special purrgatory accommodation available, also super comfy velvet settees in Victorian parlour, also fridge with cakes. Can get cheese in if desired! bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC).
- Ooooh, did someone say cheesecake? Keep the cheesecake in stock and I promise I won't scratch up the settee like ~~I did~~ I mean, like the other cat must have done to Opabinia's couch. I'm really cute, so I'm sure your other pocket residents won't mind if I sample their snacks, right??? Babou 🐱 (meow! 🐾) 20:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  - Cheesecake + everything else, check out Zilla fridge of plenty! PS, no, Zilla not eat cats, is merely malicious rumour! [Bishzilla licks her chops.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC).
    - [Bishonen is appalled.] Bishzilla!! I see you! Nobody cares if you eat a few cats and dogs, but that cat is a user! You can't eat users! I'll block you if you eat that cat. And please don't use the fridge as a trap! Sorry, young Original Research. Bishzilla has a lot of bone and muscle to feed, and she does get peckish. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC).
      - Eat me? 😿 Ahem, may I recommend the soft-bellied Cambrian? Not that I would know anything about eating cute critters. Babou 🐱 (meow! 🐾) 23:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Take it to WP:WHOEVERSMELTITDEALTIT, the pair of you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Next year's 1 April perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, somebody dealt it, all right... ;) Yay, that's a blue link! Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Today I had some furious despair on the Main page, DYK? I saw it happen! - DYK that you better write an attribution when you copy something to your sandbox. No April Fool. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Technically, sure, but on those grounds the people in the edit history of {{uw-vand1}} are the most plagiarized authors on Wikipedia. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David D. Sabatini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Signal sequence. 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) 10:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:RESTRICT entry

Something's not right with that link [2]. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops, copy/paste fail. Thanks! Fixed now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Acronyms

When catching up with some recent discussions, I had to go and Google what ORES meant. Including "Wikimedia" brought up 'Objective Revision Evaluation Service'. I then discovered that WP:ORES exists as a redirect to the meta page on this. But ended up creating Wikipedia:Objective Revision Evaluation Service myself. Unfortunately, WP:UPE (the other acronym used in that discussion), redirects to 'use plain English' (ironic). Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure (WP:PCD) clearly hasn't caught on. (Neither has WP:PCN - paid-contribution non-disclosure.) :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

What, that stands for Opabinia Regards this Edit as Silly, obviously ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me know

... what makes a RfC a drama-fest? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Oh it's simple, it's when somebody makes a comment that doesn't help move the conversation to closure. Examples include personal attacks, name-calling, or bringing up old grudges from years ago. Whenever you have a discussion, all parties should aim to close it as quickly and gracefully as they can, and my personal rule of thumb is if I've made two contributions to discussion, and it's not converging, I duck out and do something else, like look at the proliferation of cats on this page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thinking of a certain discussion: how many comments did I make? How many the one who initiated it? How many some others whose name you mentioned? Who edit-warred? - Blame me, always blame me ;) - My view: an editor who had no idea a topic was contentious began an RfC. (People may believe that I secretly prompted him, but I didn't know his name until the article appeared on my watchlist again.) In the end, he was held responsible for people leaving, so was I. He couldn't believe it. I could. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you just kind of proved my point. I wasn't thinking of any discussion in particular, and I can't remember the last RfC I participated in. If this RfC wasn't in 2017, nobody should give a flying banana about it. I don't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, being held responsible for people leaving was the worst thing that happened to me in my seven years on Wikipedia, so I don't easily forget, it hurts. - How about you dropping any reference to an RfC from 2016 then? - I remember the last RfC, 2017. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

When I noticed the last cat thread got archived, I figured I'd have to replace him, but I see you beat me to it. With an excellent specimen, too. Sounds like I am missing some dramaz, but since I don't know where yet I'll just hang out with kitteh ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The RfA (which I thought was not improved by calling an RfC the candidate had initiated in August last year a "just still too recent" "drama-fest") withdrawn, so stay with enjoying kitteh, - candidate seems not at all discouraged, that's most important for me, - all fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies to Babou for more on-wiki-harassment --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a shame this picture is non free. Gerda, I finally figured out what you were talking about; I generally like following Eric's advice about calling a spade a f***ing shovel myself.Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

All fine, and I try to stick to two comments per discussion, good arbcom training. The arbs should make that a universal rule of thumb. - Great image, reminds me of our official Leipzig photo ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, you can call a spade a fucking shovel, but no more than twice per thread ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Hi Opabinia,

I notice that Guido den Broeder has been unbanned by ArbCom, which means that his Arbcom ban is undone. It isn't clear to me whether his community ban from December 2008[3] is also included in this unban or not (I didn't think ArbCom normally overruled community sanctions, but I may well be missing something here). Fram (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Arbcom doesn't currently do appeals of community bans, but it used to, and this kind of got grandfathered in because of the age and convoluted history. At this point there is relevant material from the older arbcom discussions that would be hard to put to community review, so for continuity's sake we went with the "you break it, you bought it" approach ;) IIRC we've generally been reviewing issues that are holdovers from the BASC era (or before) and have already been reviewed by the committee - except for the residual BASC backlog at the beginning of 2016, though, that hasn't been more than a handful of cases. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was somewhat surprised that someone who was community banned that long ago (and as far as I know is still banned on nlwiki as well) and was caught socking still years later (late 2015) could get unbanned, but oh well, we'll see what happens. Fram (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and is there a reason that the end of the siteban for e.g. Occultzone is announced at WP:AN, but this unban isn't? It seems to me that the community might have more to say about an unban of someone who was community banned, than the unban of someone who was ArbCom banned. Fram (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a general comment, not about this particular case, but: I never really appreciated before I was on arbcom the value of having people's virtual hands where you can see them.

Usually something gets the AN treatment if it arises from a case or some other public proceeding, and doesn't if it was handled privately. This case is again kind of in process limbo. (The last action in 2009 was by an arb, labeled as both an arbcom and an AE action, which wouldn't happen these days either...) Come to think of it, BASC had an on-wiki log of successful appeals, and awhile ago we set up a post-BASC log for appeals which would have been the best place to post this, but it hasn't been used consistently. (For my own part, that is plain forgetfulness, but I do think a quiet and slow return is generally the way to go for the best chance of successfully reintegrating into the community.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"the best chance of successfully reintegrating into the community.", or the best chance to again create trouble before people are actually aware that you wer eback and e.g. didn't tell ArbCom about the 2015 socking or something similar. Often people outside ArbCo have better or at least additional knowledge of the case, and unbanning based on the hearing of one side only is often a bad idea. We'll see what happens here... Fram (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, we didn't just fall off the turnip truck ;) But yes, we'll see how it goes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

female-cat-named-Liebe

Liebe

The day we have gladness on the Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait, and the kitty isn't the DYK image?? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Write an article on her ;) - I rarely get one pictured, but succeeded with Altenberger Dom, the first Gothic church I saw as a child. 2 boxes ;) - Have a guess: how many operas have an infobox? (I always look the first day of a month. - Click on "transclusion count" here). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

What's the notability guideline for cats? WP:NMEOW? I assume the infobox will be Template:Infobox awwlookatthecutelittleittybittykittycat (with a redirect from Template:Infobox GETOFFTHEGODDAMNTABLEYOUFUZZYASSHOLE ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Warning: if you said "amused" in infobox matters, you have driven away FA writers, - if you say "I just have fun", you are cited to the dismal swamp, - now what is this? Looks even worse ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible answers to your questions

Dear Opabinia regalis,

You edited some stuff and asked the following questions:

"Questions: 1. Why is this article listed under the category of "International scientific organizations" - The article appears to be about a specific individual and not an organization...furthermore there is no mention of an organization that the individual created or currently chairs etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.19.248.31 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Removed the organization categories. Possibly someone added them thinking categories are topic "tags" - that happens a lot. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)".

https://www.ictp.it/about-ictp/media-centre/news/news-archive/2009/3/ictp-and-ebasi.aspx and https://portal.ictp.it/pio/words/newsletter/backissues/News_95/features_EBASI.html and http://ebasi.org/MOU_20110101215733/index.html and https://www.ictp.it/about-ictp/mission-history.aspx http://ebasi.org/Ghana_Meeting_Report.pdf (sample report IAEA-EBASI technical meeting held in Ghana)

are links to the ICTP (International Centre for theoretical Physics (Trieste, Italy) and EBASI (Edward Bouchet Abdus Salam Institute---I am Chair of EBASI). the ICTP is an international scientific organization funded by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, http://en.unesco.org/), the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency, https://www.iaea.org/), and the Italian government. EBASI is a sub-unit of the ICTP with HQ in Trieste, Italy.

I am a Fellow of the American Physical Society (APS) ( See http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/fellowships/archive-all.cfm?initial=&year=1999&unit_id=FED&institution= ).

That is why the categories were present. There is one category which is weird...Category:Heritage organizations and should not be there.

Can you please restore the organizational catagories?

Thanks.Slaughtsphysics (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Slaughtsphysics: I removed the organization categories because that's just not how Wikipedia categories are usually organized, and it makes the category pages confusing to navigate when multiple topics are mixed in the same category. Look for example at the contents of Category:International scientific organizations and you won't see any biographies of individuals, only articles about the organizations themselves. For some organizations, we do have separate categories specifically for the members of the organization (usually for large organizations where membership is an honor) - your article is still in the category Category:Fellows of the American Physical Society, for example. You can find some guidelines for biographical categories on this page: Wikipedia:Categorization of people. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

"they edit-warred to put pictures of squabbling children in the ANI editnotice"

That made me laugh. Sorry, can't resist pointing it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, now that I've thought of it, I really want to do it... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I see that you tweaked the ANI link :-) File:Fighting after school in central Jamaica - all shoelaces are open (32361821164).jpg could be a good standalone image, but aside from the zooming, I wanted two images that faced each other, and the little Jamaican kids definitely wouldn't work as well as the Filipino and Lithuanian boys. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You made the right choice ;) Oh, I edited this page and I'm sad now, I just noticed the pictures don't show up in the little drop-down box where editnotices live in the beta source editor. Harumph! Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Opabinia regalis,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 819 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for help in connection with sockpuppetry

Sorry to disturb your sleep, but I am hoping you may be able to give me some help. On 1 August 2016 you unblocked Fixer88 as a result of a successful block appeal to arbcom, as you can see in this block log. I had taken part in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fixer88/Archive, where I had expressed doubt as to whether Fixer88 was a member of the same sock farm as other accounts mentioned there. Recently, however, more accounts have been identified as belonging to that sock farm, and once again a CheckUser has found that Fixer88 is linked to them, which makes me wonder whether the block on Fixer88 should be restored. Can you let me know on what grounds the arbcom decision to unblock was made? (By email if it needs to be kept confidential.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: DoRD emailed me about this and I replied earlier today, but in short I think Fixer is still unrelated to the sock farm unless new information has emerged. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Oops, should've looked first - I see he already posted on your talk. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

IP User:100.36.129.251

You recently blocked this editor for harassment. It might be a good idea to keep an eye on them as they falsely accused me of vandalizing list of Stanley Cup Champions after myself and another user removed their edit. I'm unsure if User:Tallahassle is related in any way to this IP address. Though given their reaction to my revert of Tallahassle it may be possible that the IP and the new user account are linked.

Sorry for having to drag you into this. Deadman137 (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Deadman137: Thanks for the heads-up. I don't see any immediate connection between the particular behavior I blocked the IP for and the recent revert, but I'll keep an eye on it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The IP has restarted the activity that got them blocked the first time, the only difference is now their doing it on my talk page. Deadman137 (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, what got them blocked the first time was posting stuff that needed to be suppressed. But I blocked the IP again. I'm pretty busy IRL at the moment, if you see them again feel free to take them to AIV or ANI as appropriate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Carried away

I think I might have gotten a little carried away in this edit summary. Is that worth redacting? ;) Primefac (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Lol. Fuck no ;) Congrats! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and some points

First I want to thank you for your comments here. They are reasonable. I have addressed the concerns I have below.

My position on physicians as editors who may have their own level of POV, and should, because of that, exercise caution, is articulated well here by the then long time arb Roger Davies. My thoughts on this are not original to me, or unique, and I understand the concerns. My concern with physicians who edit WP articles is based on my own experience- this pg 76,77,78 for example which is twisted and partly fabricated and has very little basis in reality but astonishingly is now an off-Wikipedia publication. This isn't a nice thing to read or see; I had seen this before but was sent the link again and was bothered in the extreme by the way this material is used as fact but is moslty fabricated. There are many other examples of situations which concern me.

There must be proof of COI and that must come from editors who are not involved in an adversarial way. In the first T M arbitration the arbs had my personal information and despite that did not note a COI, and they had the time and inclination to look deeply into the case. I also respected Atama an admin who policed to COI Noticeboard and he too did not see COI. I have a very clear sense of how to put together articles, to have the distance to note neutrality. If there is any article in which I may have an emotional attachment to the topic it is about an artist whom I admire and not a T M topic.

As for civility. I am civil because that is how I try treat people both in life and on this site, and civility is the site standard. I am not using that civility to hide some nefarious actions.

Thank you and best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC))

Sorry, I'm pretty busy IRL at the moment, but to re-emphasize one thing: arbcom is not, and has never been, a body responsible for reviewing conflicts, credentials, etc. arising from anyone's real-life situation. That some previous committee "didn't note a COI" is not a particularly useful argument, for the same reason that someone coming to ARCA asking us to declare one now is not particularly useful. It's just not a thing a group of volunteers with no real-world investigative powers or resources do. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

My intent was merely to express concerns, for the record, and I would have been fine with no reply here at all so I do apologize for this seemingly repetitive comment. I understand and respect the work the arbs do and don't want to add to the load. In the past what I have left unsaid has created big problems for me so I am determined to not do that again. My point is that COI determination has to be neutral. Thanks for your response here and best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC))

ARCA

I posted a request for clarification a few days ago at ARCA. I know arbs are all volunteers but the silence is becoming deafening. I'm starting to wonder if I've mis-formatted it so it doesn't show up on some template, or whether it's caused such intense debate on the super-sekrit arb pages that nobody dares comment in public or what. Any ideas? Or am I just being impatient and paranoid? GoldenRing (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing The formatting looks fine. There have been a few unrelated things under discussion on the mailing list that may be taking up mental space. Speaking for myself, I posted in a different ARCA yesterday and meant to look at yours next, but in the intervening time I was asked if I wanted another beer and I said yes and that was that ;) I'll try to look tonight. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries. There's no hurry, it just seemed that everyone (I think) who has commented there was pinged there so I was wondering if anyone else was seeing it at all. GoldenRing (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I knew I'd make a liar out of myself saying I'd read it tonight. Tomorrow! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Re I think it's wise to wait if something is ambiguous and not urgent, I thought this case was unambiguous but not urgent - I'll recalibrate my AE activities in line with your rebuke. Thanks for making it a gentle one. GoldenRing (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not even really a rebuke of you in particular :) More of a general point - look back through the last couple of years of arb stuff and you'll find several instances where being quick on the trigger on AE stuff caused issues. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

wiki thanks

well said, you got a chuckle out of me. Here is some cat thanks for your good work here. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A clarification

You recently stated at WT:ACN:--- ...... where poor editing is a serious problem - medical articles matter in ways that differ from most topics, especially micronations and actresses.(My emphasis)
Can you please illuminate us on the methodology that led you to draw conclusions regarding the seriousness of a topic?Also, may you further elucidate whether your classification supercedes the seriousness of WP:BLP concerns(w.r.t edits such as this.) Thanks!Winged Blades^Godric 10:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the edit reverting the one you highlighted seems to be wrong; Guido's edit correctly cites the source. Whether it's a good source, or due weight, is not something I know anything about or have time to research; you'd have to regularly go out in a paper sack to be less qualified than I am to write about fashion models.

What matters is the possibility of harm coming from poor edits. BLP and medical articles are the top two. I'd also include safety-related topics, which aren't quite the same as medical topics but can be problematic for similar reasons, and in rare cases current-events information can be sensitive without directly intersecting with BLP issues. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Why

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If you wonder why you got a "fuck you too", it was for hypocritical or stupid statements like

"I haven't even read the re-ban thread yet (though surely, as the unblocking admin, it would have been appropriate to at least notify me...) ". If ArbCom doesn't see fit to post even the customary arbcom announcement on the arbcom noticeboard about "x is unblocked by arbcom, voted for (names), against (names)...", then why would we contact the messenger (the unlucky arb tasked with doing the actual unblocking) when the predicatble problems happen again and the editor needs to be rebanned? A note about the AN discussion was posted on the users talk page, as you claim responsability as the unblocking admin (and the one placing restrictions) you could have easily seen that one of course if you were in any way interested (or you could have checked his edits for problems, which were plain to see from the start).

"In the meantime I recommend mulling over the answer you already got two months ago ;)" Oh, a smiley, that always helps! That answer was utterly unsatisfactory, as should have been clear to you at the time already. To hide behind that as if you had done your duty with that set of evasive responses is very weak.

" It is not really reasonable to start getting agitated because nobody has replied to a non-urgent question within 48 hours of its asking. Especially when the previous iteration of the same question was already answered in this thread on my talk page from April. " On the contrary, it is very reasonable to expect "some" response in 48 hours, when multiple arbcom members are already busy arbcomming anyway. Not a full response, simply an acknowledgment that the concerns or questions are seen and will be answered. And no, you hadn't answered the same question in any satisfactory way previously, e.g. GdB claimed that he denied the socking when discussing things with the ArbCom, which if true would be very alarming.

"And given that said AN thread was open for under 24 hours and nobody except the soon-to-be-banned subject of the thread troubled themselves to notify the admin who unblocked, the carrying-on here about communication and speed of response is... well, as my mother would say, "that's a bit rich, isn't it?"" No, and this one especially got you a well-deserved fuck you too. I didn't ask for a response especially from you, or I would have posted at your talk page. I posted at the admin noticeboard because this is a collective action by ArbCom (I assume that you weren't so stupid that you unblocked on your own but claimed it to be an ArbCom unblock). I notified the commitee which unblocked, not the messenger or pianist (you, in this case). That you try to make this personal is your choice, not mine.

" I almost never ask someone to "admit their failings", publicly or otherwise." Which is stupid. If the people don't indicate that they understand why they were blocked or banned previously (in this case, blocked 7 times or so, banned twice, and blocked for socking), then why would you believe that this time, they will avoid the same problems. If they don't know what caused the problems, they have no way of avoiding running into them again.

You (ArbCom) tried to remedy this with the restrictions, but these show a serious misunderstanding or underestimation of what the actual problems with GdB were (and indicate why such an unban without community input is in such cases a bad idea). And that's not even going into the many problems that could have been predicted by simply checking the edits by his socks, which pointed straight to his belief that he is the prince of a micronation which is the gate to a parallel universe (and who seems to have an unhealthy fascination with "the most beautiful child on earth" as well). Basically, you invited a nutcase known for his extreme COI editing and general problematic behaviour back in without any indication that you were aware of anything beyond the most basic facts of his previous bans (where his CFS editing was only the tip of the iceberg).

I don't think asking for some accountability here was too much, certainly when other editors at the unban discussion showed similar surprise, and when the reban was one of the swiftest and least controversial ones I have seen for anyone bar flat-out racists or pedophiles. But apparently you believe that everything that needed to be said was already said at the April discussion here on your talk page... Fram (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Ha, well, I wasn't wondering really; you've made your opinion pretty clear. It's always a weird sort of through-the-looking-glass moment - Alice in Arbland? - to be on this side of these conversations, because I remember feeling like this a couple of times in 2015, though I'm more of a sarcastic-comments-from-the-sidelines than a fuck-you kind of person. All puffed up with self-righteous anger and unshakably convinced I was right - not just in the sense of "I predicted X would happen and it came true", but convinced I was Right, in some significant and foundational way, and those silly arbs making decisions I disagreed with were Wrong. Of course it turns out that after you look behind the curtain arbs are just people like everyone else, and you muddle along as best you can to make reasonable, practical, compassionate decisions that you hope will turn out well. If you're not making any dud decisions, you're being too cautious, and if you do have the occasional dud, you get somebody swearing at you and writing long posts about how they were Right.

Anyway, I'm not being hypocritical or evasive or failing WP:ALLCAPSACCT or whatever; I was serious when I said at ACN that I'm extremely busy at the moment, and I don't have time to have this conversation in two places at once. If you think a 48-hour service level agreement should be an arbcom requirement, WP:ARBPOL is thataway. Taking several steps back, what actually happened here was that someone made 200ish unhelpful edits on a couple of low-visibility pages. Life goes on. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The 48 hours was not for you, it was for anyone at ArbCom. That's why there is a bunch of you, so that some are available to comment and indicate what is happening or what timeframe we may expect. "What actually happened" is a total waste of time, because you let a known liability back to make "200ish unhelpful edits on a couple of low-visibility pages." for no good reason at all, and no one at ArbCom seems capable of even indicating who thought this was a good idea and who didn't. ArbCom is there to solve problems the community can't, not to second guess problems the community and a previous arbcom have already solved perfectly; but if you do second-guess, at least do it for someone without recent problematic history and without all the indications that nothing has changed at all.

And of course, you don't help yourself one bit when you claim that the AN case went too fast and with not enough participation; so what you want is that even more people wasted even more time on your collective poor decision? Fram (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I've used this line before, but arbcom is not the Borg. If you have a question about a specific issue, you probably want whoever handled that specific issue first. (Of course, you acknowledge in your "tldr" post that you didn't notify me because you thought it would be "useless" - but "I thought I might not get the response I wanted" isn't how it works, and is especially ironic given the substance of your criticism.) A decision was made that you disagree with. It didn't work out well in this case, but 75% of similar decisions made in the last year and a half have worked out well enough, or at least not failed yet. Nobody will agree with all of the decisions arbcom makes. If you want more impact, there's always WP:ACE2017 - though I promise you'd find out soon enough that routinely responding to non-urgent issues within two days is not realistic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And here I was thinking ArbCom handled issues collectively... Not only dysfunctional, but deliberately labyrinthine as well? Please explain how posting something on the noticeboard instead of on your user page (my statement) is "especially ironic" for someone criticizing that you didn't post the unban on the noticeboard? "Especially ironic" would have been if I had contacted you by mail to complain about the situation.

It seems to me that whatever I would have done, it would have been the wrong way to deal with this (just like AN is apparently so wrong to deal with this swiftly). If I post on the general noticeboard and am amazed that no one from ArbCom seems to respond to questions and complaints, you take it personal and act as if I have asked you personally to respond within 48 hours. But on the other hand, I should have come to you directly anyway. How would this have helped anything? It didn't help the first time in any case, and the chance of getting a swift, open or complete response from one specific ArbCom member seemed smaller than getting the same from all of them.

Anyway, I know now who I wone be voting for in future ArbCom elections. Every member of the committee we have now, who can't even give a voting list for this case (why is the bloody voting not public? Staggering), or explain why they haven't taken previous behaviour into account (apparently the socking was not important or too old or what, never mind the other behaviour over the years, or his actions against Google and Wikimedia to get links to his name removed from the history (the same name he now wants to use again now that he has something to promote), or... well, anything really. Anyway, I'll continue the discussion tomorrow on the noticeboard talk page, perhaps some other ArbCom member will finally remember the basics of what they are supposed to do. Fram (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

From the edit summary of "bye" and your post at ACN, I gather that you are finished with this conversation, so I'm going to close this thread now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You've got mail!

Hello, Opabinia regalis. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Possible sock.
Message added 22:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GAB^gab 22:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Replied! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Forget cat

Really?

ARCA, or we will never forget? Or what? When will we let go of 2013? The ancient time when Carmen and Beethoven were debated? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You always find such pretty kitties! 2013 must have been better, because then I didn't have to read ARCA... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, for the sleeping kitty greeting, and for your ARCA post. You said things much better than I could have (and who would listen to me there anyway). 2013: bicentenary of Wagner's birth. The thread above it was titled "No infobox", intended to have an infobox (only) on the talk page, as one of your arb colleagues had recommended. Certainly misunderstood. The infobox for Beethoven made it right from the workshop page of the arbcase of that name to being established in the article as the community consensus by the (former) arb who had written that case. I thought then, again, that it was over ;) - No, see Percy Grainger, 2017. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

ps: the Wagner memory lead image shows a woman who can't believe what she has to see. See also, quote: "I feel like I am pleading with you as Abraham with God (Genesis 18:17–33): If there are only 10 readers who profit from the structured information about this article in the infobox, would you deprive them of it?" (2013) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you should bring cat pictures to ARCA, much better than what usually goes on there :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I try to avoid ARCA. It's hard because Olive is a friend of mine. I wonder what I would do if a collection of my 2013 edits was presented as a reason for trouble in 2017, by two people. Only: there are no diffs to quote me from 2013, - look at the arbcase: no evidence. I added an infobox to one or the other opera, and the stories by Kafka, I discussed an infobox for Bach, I suggested to have one on the talk of Wagner: that was enough to get "admonished". - On the other side - then - were Kleinzach, Smerus and Nikkimaria, - we collaborate. I will probably still be called the infobox warrier with her sheep of followers disrupting FAs for the rest of my life. I worked on Kafka which helps, finally something from 2013 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Luckily, ARCA has been infobox-free for months! I was thinking the other day of measuring which cases generate the most requests and how long it takes for a case to finally die out as an active issue, but right now there's no doubt that PIA is peak ARCA. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you look at Grainger? It's not at ARCA because I think it's a waste of time to have the arbs - who didn't look at at evidence in teh case, so how would I assume they ever could - officially say that I don't have followers, and if I had them they were no sheep. I'll sleep over a cat image at ARCA, - too tired, great opera in a great house, both a first. Have a guess: after that initial resistance in 2013: how many operas have an infobox? For help: of those discussed in teh case, only one is without. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

La la la la not listening, not reading any ancient arbcases other than the one at ARCA! (So much unread text in that thread....) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it has nothing to do with any arbcase that I believe users should not be called "sheep". The estimate of operas is also just for fun. I would have to look it up myself (click on transclusion count), - I only check on the first of each month. I love to see Götterdämmerung rather on top of that list ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Calls for a cat video, I think ;) Sheep can be tough when they need to be. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Guess what we sang tonight? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This will be my Christmas song 2017 - we sang it here, picture taken by GD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added the pic to where you suggested. My ~~play~~singlist for Pentecost is here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Nicely done! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Back to the beginning: when and how can that be forgotten? - Good memories: tenor Andreas Schager, - I was there in Minden and Wiesbaden, and the critics saying sensational and "stunning" (in a German review"!) don't exaggerate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That last-minute substitution story is impressive! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

When will cat on ARCA be heard, miiiiauw? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Getting ready for Kafka's birthday, link on the main page to the trial: "it tells the story of a man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed neither to him nor to the reader", simply true, and may be a woman. The good name of the witch of Pungo was restored after 300 years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, usually I can figure out what you're referencing, but I'm really busy IRL and I've barely been on-wiki all month, and you lost me after "Kafka's birthday is next week" :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I worked on Kafka (TFA 3 July 2013), - it made bearing arbcom easier, didn't want to say so in plain words, but you asked ;) - The witch will appear as TFA on 10 July, in memory of the restoration of her good name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

We're not that bad :) Belated congrats on the article! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yogo sapphire
TFA

30 June 2012

Which article, - the witch? PumpkinSky wrote it, as Kafka, and Yogo sapphire which appeared five years today, restoring his good name (after months of a - insert strong word for unreasonable - block, bravely unblocked by 28bytes), - for a while at least. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Archived, finally, Magnificat! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Now, on Kafka's birthday, a reminder on the Main page, and another that cats mean something to me. - I saw another literature opera, impressive. Protagonist and opera will get an article, promised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The English Cat. The composer signed my program. - OTD, Joan of Arc was declared innocent 25 years after her death. I have about four years after Teh Case, and the article was protected ;) - Protagonist, Opera started. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Any admin looking here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC) - Forget, several helping --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Today look at the chosen one, - I wonder if she counts as a woman in music. My latest has a couple. - I had reason to remember how much time we ~~wasted~~ spent on a certain arb case's amendments and second request, and hope it will not happen again. - The solution would be so easy: just don't revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice article as usual! Wow, this thread is over two months old; that's tooooo much ARCA. I'm going to send it off to the archives later, after I find a new talk page kitten :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Duruflé's Requiem, before you archive, where an IP says "no, no, no" and "nasty individual", - which made me think of Alakzi, - I really dislike the phrase. It was meant for the EotW, for more irony. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I see Cullen is being useful :) Unfortunately, I suspect you guys are getting trolled there... Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hi. I have a quick question: Is the case is explicitly about me or it will examine the other party's behaviour too? In not, should I open an ArbCom for Rob now or wait from the first case to close? -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: The usual line is, a case will examine the behavior of all parties. If you choose to submit evidence about Rob, you can certainly do that, although I suspect you would be better off not focusing on interpersonal issues. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

True and I agree. Magioladitis (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

... and I agree (very generally so, I try to avoid arbcom, but it came up in an RfA). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This conspiracy theory is an obvious and intentional misreading of my comment stating my concerns that the Committee was failing to break the back of the dispute in the original proposed decision. Please prevent the use of this case to bait me and twist my words in manners that no reasonable human acting in good faith could manage. I've been dealing with this in every discussion Magioladitis has responded to me in for months. I will not put up with it through the case as well. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Guys, I am really busy and just barely active enough to qualify as "active", so my talk page is not the best place for lodging complaints about the other party. I expect the case pages will be set up in a day or so. Magioladitis, you said above that you agreed with my earlier post; I'll say again that I cannot recommend strongly enough that you focus your attention in the case on your own behavior and not on interpersonal matters. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I know; chose here mostly to avoid the likely SNAFU of a formal complaint and because you've had the most success getting through in the past. My intent is to see the behavior stop, not make the case more complicated. Thanks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Swish! And the case is closed

Why does the Magioladitis casepage say "Case opened on 14:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)" and also "Case closed on 14:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)" ? I thought I warned you against letting Darwinbish clerk it! Or did you send your own cat? That may be worse. Bishonen | talk 01:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC).

Well, Babou is always available to help with paperwork! But... I don't see what you see; maybe the page needed a purge? Looks like the usual open case/target dates format to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Aww, I miss the days of thankspam now. Congrats! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

*sniff* I used to be a contender.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Time for an RfB? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Did anything come of this?

Was there ever a response from WMF on Special:Diff/703375545? Mojoworker (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mojoworker: We did ask them about it, but the conclusion was the behavior at the time wasn't really at the level where they would intervene. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if that's still the case – there are probably twice as many IPs listed now then there were then. Mojoworker (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't kept up with this issue at all, but my guess would be that more of the same wouldn't change their response, but escalating behavior like threats of violence or off-wiki harassment might. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Harrison Fuller wiki page

While not so when first created, I believe I have sufficient reason to create a Wikipedia Page for Harrison Fuller. (A.K.A. Harrison J. Fuller.)

Here is a legitimate list of Harrison Fuller's Film Festival Circuit run - many of these festivals being extremely notable or signifigant.

Best Shorts Competition - Best Picture WINNER

300 Seconds Film Festival - Finalist/Nominee

Los Angeles Cinefest - Semi-Finalist/Nominee

Newark Film Festival - Nominee (WINNER NOT YET ANNOUNCED)

St. Albans Film Festival - Finalist/Nominee

KIDS FIRST! Film Festival - Nominee (WINNER NOT YET ANNOUNCED)

YoungFilmmakers - Nominee

TopShorts - Nominee

All American High School Film Festival - Nominee (WINNER NOT YET ANNOUNCED)

Here also, is an attached picture of the 'FilmFreeway' awards submission/status screen.

http://imgur.com/a/vL6Mv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Directox11 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is also the IMDb Page for Fuller. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm8559024/?ref_=tt_ov_dr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Directox11 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Directox11: I wondered how I was involved here, and I see I deleted Harrison Fuller, but only because the article had been moved to Harrison J. Fuller and then deleted. I was only cleaning up, not making a decision about the article itself. I think the section of our inclusion criteria you want to look at is WP:FILMMAKER. This isn't my content area at all, but I'm not optimistic about notability here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

stalbansfilmfestival.com/2017_selection.php

http://bestshorts.net/past-winners/award-of-merit-june-2017/

http://300secshortfilmfest.com/finalists.html http://www.lacinefest.org/ (they don't show the semi-finalists online, listed at bottom.)

http://www.kidsfirst.org/detail/217186.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Directox11 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to post sources here. Use WP:DRAFTS to draft your article if you believe the subject meets the criteria. I don't do pre-reviews for notability for subjects outside my field. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

A note of appreciation

"Also, I really don't want to hear much about how so-and-so was posting on Facebook, tweeting cat memes, texting their parents, out at the bar, desperately trying to feed the dog their homework, whatever. WP:VOLUNTEER." [4]

I'm really glad one of the arbs had the presence of mind to say this at the outset. A number of comments at that ANI pushed the limits of what is an appropriate line of inquiry into the off-project life of a contributor under this community's policies, and some blew past altogether. Whatever the outcome, I'm glad ArbCom is asserting control over the matter; that thread was/is problematic in a number of respects. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know exactly what direction the case will take yet, but hopefully not this one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

RfB nomination

Hello! After looking through your contribution in many areas your admin and ArbCom job (all 3 are outstanding by the way) I concluded that you are a user worthy to be nominated for bureaucratship. Are you willing to accept such a nomination? --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The odds of OR (or me) passing RFB are as close to zero as makes no difference. Not only is there a decade-long gap in the edit history, which as SoWhy has just found out is automatic grounds to oppose for some people, but as an active arb then by definition she's made a big stack of enemies. Remember, RFB isn't run on the "simple majority" basis of Arbcom elections, but needs a supermajority—even if she's not made a single enemy since 2015 and only 10% of the 389 people who opposed her arb candidacy bother to turn up to the RFB, then she'd need to attract 221 supporters just to counteract those 39 opposes, with a further six supporters (5 ²⁄₃ supporters, if you want to be pedantic) needed for every one opposer who turned up on top of that just to make the RFB land in the discretionary range. Because of the unrealistically important status some people attach to the job, RFB is insanely difficult to pass—it's almost certainly easier to get elected onto the WMF board itself than it is to attain the relatively trivial 'crat position. (If I had my way the whole 'crat thing would be deprecated altogether and their few remaining functions dealt with by an elected committee delegated with the power to close RFCs, but nobody else seems very keen on the idea.) ‑ Iridescent 17:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Kostas20142, thanks for thinking of me, but - everything Iridescent just said, with a cherry on top :) Plus there's the fact that I'm really busy with real life and haven't even come close to cracking triple digits on edit counts for the last couple of months (that's the "highly active editor" threshold, isn't it?). And a chunk of the time I do have for Wikipedia business is spent on my overflowing inbox.

As for this RfC-closer committee, I never figured out what's stopping people who want that job from starting WikiProject RfC and hanging out a shingle. Before an RfC starts, the organizers ask if WPRFC will take the job, and agree in advance that if they do then the result will be binding. With time the project grows enough to have "trainees" and "clerks" and elections for the closers themselves. A few arb cases will come through, to the effect of "I didn't get my way and it's not faaaair", we'll take a few and spend six weeks on a 3,000-word decision with 10 principles that boil down to "Too bad, life's not faaaair", and after a few cycles to work the bugs out, it'll be Community Consensus to do things that way. (You can routinely reach that hallowed state with a dozen ANI hangers-on, so I don't think that outcome is really much of a stretch.) Much better if it happens in a bottom-up, "community" kind of way rather than being blessed by arbcom from the beginning. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Grumpy cat on landing.jpg

For those of you watching in black and white, long reply to this here to save cross-posting. OR, have a bad tempered cat as compensation for the use of your talk page. ‑ Iridescent 11:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Bad-tempered cats = best cats. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Lol, I just noticed you put {{Esoteric file}} on that, as if there aren't already hundreds of pictures of people's cats on commons that are equally ~~educationally useless~~ necessary for storing the world's knowledge of what domestic cats look like. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

If I had my way, {{Esoteric file}} would be used about a thousand times more often than it currently is. Yes, I know the "we can't predict what people will find useful" argument, but I'm fairly certain nobody has encyclopedic use for a scowling indolent cat sulking because she's just had the goosegrass burrs plucked out of her fur against her wishes, and all sending it to Commons would achieve is making it marginally more difficult for someone looking for useful images of cats. ‑ Iridescent 09:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

And yet somehow there's no commons:Category:Sulking cats yet.... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Give Neelix time and I imagine there soon will be. (As I write this, he's merrily populating Commons:Category:Nude or partially nude people with numbers.) ‑ Iridescent 15:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

When I looked this morning, I saw he'd created Commons:Category:Cats sitting on tables. Awww. And, logically enough, Commons:Category:Dogs sitting on tables. And Commons:Category:People sitting on tables. And, inevitably, Commons:Category:Nude or partially nude people sitting on tables. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Which is, of course, a subcategory of Commons:Category:Nude or partially nude people on tables, which was obviously much too unspecific for him. (Some of the subcategories of Commons:Category:Nude or partially nude people with objects could politely be described as "of questionable value" even by Neelix standards. Commons:Category:Nude or partially nude people with red ribbons, Commons:Category:Nude or partially nude women with hula hoops or Commons:Category:Nude woman standing and filling a goblet and the other drinks while lying on the ground, anyone?) ‑ Iridescent 14:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, this is a fun game. Commons:Category:Topless women using vacuum cleaners? Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

See you that and raise you Commons:Category:Nude smiling women with necklaces in cleavage ‑ Iridescent 12:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, for the record, I created a draft of the project here. Feel free to comment on talk talk page or help in any way! --Kostas20142 (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: sloooooow down. You seem to have a lot of enthusiasm to spare with all those RfX suggestions and proposals, but "there should be some kind of group responsible for closing big RfCs" is an idea that's been around forever in various forms, some much more carefully thought out than my idle speculation, and it's good to look into the history before proposing it again. It's also the kind of thing that would work best if most of the originators already have a lot of experience with closing complex RfCs (and dealing with the resulting "no faaaair!" complaints) before they start trying to add more structure to that role. If you're really interested in this sort of thing, start with observing how complex discussions are currently managed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Well you've got a point. Well I will stick to closing some RfC and observe the most complex ones for the time being. Thank you for the advice and guidance! --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I share Iridescent's view that the current bureaucrat role and status is a historical anomaly, but I do think we need a couple more experienced editors in the position, if only to have some new (in the role) blood participating in the occasional contested BN resysopping thread or borderline-RfA 'crat chat. A few weeks ago, I had planned to ask a couple of people I thought would be well-qualified if they'd be interested, after defining "well-qualified" in my mind as "saying clueful things in 'most any discussion I see them participating in." I never got around to asking those two people because I got distracted by real life that week, but as it happens, the first two people I was going to ask were Opabinia regalis and Iridescent. Having read the above, perhaps it's just as well that I didn't ask. (For what it's worth, I couldn't pass RfB either, nor would I deserve to: I'm probably too lenient in evaluating RfA candidates, and I've taken a sometimes-controversial position on striking out trollish votes.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

DeltaQuad and Euryalus would be the obvious names to me—if Arbcom's activity has really declined as much as I'm led to believe then closing a couple of RFAs a year and the odd bot approval shouldn't be too onerous. RFB is probably the one area on Wikipedia where my previous description of them as having such an air of forced bland inoffensiveness that they give the impression they shit boiled eggs is actively a positive. Failing that, Bencherlite would be quite a good bet—given his experience as a former scheduler of the main page, he's used to closing contentious discussions and soothing irate people with an over-inflated sense of self-importance. He'd be very unlikely to pass, but Sandstein would probably do a pretty good job of it as well. ‑ Iridescent 21:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your choices, but 10% of any sitting arb's opposition turning out to oppose could make for a bumpy RfB. I suspect DQ and others who can make the argument from their bot-related expertise would fare better than candidates running mainly to participate in RfA closings.

Also, that made me wonder about the context of your previous description, so I searched for a distinctive string, so now somewhere in the server logs is a search for "shit boiled eggs". Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If enough people search for it, it will show up in WP:TOPRED and the ~~busybodies with nothing better to do than clog up mainspace with pointless stubs~~ people who consider it important that any term on which people are likely to search needs to have at least a one sentence placeholder page will try to write the Shit boiled eggs article. ‑ Iridescent 16:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers, get to work! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

As long as someone doesn't misread "shit boiled eggs" as "shit-boiled eggs" and add them here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed redirect: 💩🥚. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	We need an arbitrator's barnstar, but without that, I can still award you this. No disrespect meant to the other arbitrators (especially since much of arbitration occurs behind closed doors), but from what is public, I think you're the best arbitrator. Banedon (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I support the praise. - Regarding the question you archived: yes, the right cat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! You know, my father told me as a kid that the best advice he had for adulthood was "never do a bad job well". I guess I didn't listen... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Banedon: For what it's worth, I believe you have good judgment about arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

* blush * Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Your alt motion

I'm interested. Can you find a way to make it clear that "general competence" doesn't stretch so that bad faith editors jump on TRM any time he criticises someone. Maybe with a parenthetical "(not specific)" or some such?

The trouble with Arbcom measures that aren't utterly spelled out is that the big target painted on his back encourages anyone with mischief in mind to have a go. Never mind the good faith but erroneous.

While we do have WP:BOOMERANG it's not nearly scary enough (not like a Mark of Cain) so I think you guys just need to be really descriptive. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, I think the best way to avoid that problem would be for TRM to spend a much smaller fraction of his Wikipedia efforts on criticizing others or questioning their competence, specifically or generally. Aside from the known troll who's been around lately trying to stir up trouble, I don't see much "bad faith mischief"; I have seen over-interpretations of the remedy and some degree of motivated reasoning ("I think what TRM just said was annoying, so it must be close enough to 'insulting and belittling', right?"), which can hopefully be addressed with a more specific description of the problem behavior. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

NCORP

At WT:HA you wrote several times that we should raise standards at NCORP and using standard deletion processes to deal with promotional/paid editing (e.g here). There have been several discussion at WT:SPEEDY trying to make it easier to delete spammy articles, most of which are now closed. There is an open thread at at Talk:NCORP about raising NCORP standards. It would be useful to have your input there. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've had very limited wiki-time lately, so I may be missing something, but is that the right link? That seems to be a discussion from July.

I'm trying to stay out of conversations I won't have time to keep up with, but if you want some feedback on that idea in particular, it sounds like a better fit for Wikiversity. I don't really follow how this "case study" idea relates to notability. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom mandated plans

(I can't comment on the RFC itself as someone appears to think should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred doesn't apply to them and has protected it, but feel free to copy this across if you want.)
There's definitely a precedent for Arbcom mandating "rehabilitation plans". In that case it didn't work, as all the proposed mentors eventually came to the conclusion that the subject of the plan was nuts and/or incorrigible and refused to work with her any more, but the principle of the community and the subject of a ban coming up with a set of specific rules, and a set of neutral observers to monitor compliance and to take action if appropriate, with Arbcom mandating the whole thing into a ruling so that breaches can be addressed as enforcement actions rather than going through the bureaucracy each time, is sound. – iridescent 2 08:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, posted. You should just give your sock EC.

That's an interesting example. Now that I think of it, I seem to remember some other forced-mentorship schemes as unban conditions or ban alternatives - Jack Merridew maybe? I know I was very surprised to learn that there was once a requirement for Δ to be mentored and for the mentors to make monthly reports. ("Your sentence is to regularly send arbcom long emails" is not a remedy I'll be proposing...) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Giving the sock EC would mean logging into the main account, which kind of spoils the point of an account for which I don't need to remember the long password... – iridescent 2 07:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent 2: I've given your sock most of the non-admin rights (extended confirmed, new page patroller, autopatrolled, template editor, and pending changes reviewer). If there's any of those you don't want, feel free to ping me and I'll remove them, or you can remove them when you get back to your main. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply. 07:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

True :) I was thinking for future use, though now that I've thought of it I'm specifically not going to give my sock EC, so I can make sure to complain about how EC protection is spreading like tumors on Tasmanian devils next time I need to phone post. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and I second OR's comment—although it was intended as a last resort, 30/500 is spreading like herpes. ‑ Iridescent 16:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Help design a new feature to stop harassing emails

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2016 Community Wishlist discussion or IdeaLab discussion about letting users restrict who can send them email.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

It is important to hear from a broad range of people who are interested in the design of the tool, so we hope you join the discussion.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Exonucleophagy

Just to let you know... you participated in the discussion that led to the deletion of the above article in May 2015, but it's just been recreated. I know nothing about the subject (I'm a scientist, but no biologist or medical expert), or what the previous article was like, but I'll let you decide whether it's worth keeping again (to my ignorant layman's eye, the four pictures don't clearly show me anything about the supposed process). Apologies for not making this a cat-related post. Richard3120 (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Thanks for the notification! I still don't see any significant uptake of this term in the literature, though I suppose it's possible there is material in French. The article's pretty new, so if it doesn't improve soon I'd AfD it again. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

And to make the cat connection, one of mine is getting dental work done soon. I'm sure he'll be thrilled. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't resist.^[FBDB] You can delete it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha. But it's so true! 06:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. My response was "Ich steh hier und singe" (I stand here and keep singing), which is a quote, the reaction to "Tobe, Welt, und springe" (Rage, world, and jump", all from a hymn with Joy in the title, about you should know ... that the hymn "Jesu, meine Freude" (Jesus, my joy) by Johann Franck and Johann Crüger mentions singing in defiance of the "old dragon", death, and fear? I should have been blocked for saying such a thing, but instead poor others were treated that way, one for being critical of arbcom, by an arb. In the upcoming elections, I want to ask candidates if they'd please refrain from being the enforcing power, in the name of Gewaltenteilung. (The German word is better because it refers to force/violence rather than simply power.) - What I came for was a completely different topic: I made a stub for a nanotechnology researcher, and need advice about how make a choice of publications to cite (from c. 110) and awards to mention, + what goes to a lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice article! On publications, I generally mention major reference works if they've written any, and papers only if they're specifically mentioned or highlighted in some way in the sources (say, an award citation singles out a particular set of papers). I usually cite major milestone papers in the section describing their research interests, which is a little less arbitrary-seeming than making a "selected works" type section - you'll occasionally run across editors who think it is original research to select which items to list. All of the leads for the academic articles I write sound the same, it's pretty boring :) "So-and-so is a professor of such-and-such in the department of thingamabobs at Somewhere University. She is a member of Famous Academic Society. Her research focuses on mathematical modeling of cat cuteness." Elaborate in proportion to the length of the article. Nice to see more women scientists! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about Overlapping gene article

Hi,

I was just looking at the overlapping gene article that you greatly expanded back in 2016. Thanks for the great contribution. In the classification section I think that the convergent and divergent labels might be the wrong way round. I would think that <== ==> was divergent and ==> <== was convergent. At least that is the convention when talking about gene transcription. Do you agree? Alexbateman (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbateman: I think you're right and I'm a doofus, but I only changed which arrow characters were used, not the directions [5] - which makes me wonder if I checked and confirmed at the time. But I don't have access to the sources at the moment, so if you get a chance to double check, go ahead and make whatever edits you need... otherwise I'll look later. Maybe Evolution and evolvability knows offhand? I'm really a protein person, not a genetics expert; IIRC I came to that article after writing about some viral proteins encoded that way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbateman: OK, that's such a dumb mistake that I thought sure I must have been missing something, but nope, I just had a brain fart and nobody noticed till now. Fixed, thanks for the correction! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the corrected naming. I think it stems from this reference (box 1):

Rogozin, Igor B.; Spiridonov, Alexey N.; Sorokin, Alexander V.; Wolf, Yuri I.; Jordan, I. King; Tatusov, Roman L.; Koonin, Eugene V. (2002-05-01). "Purifying and directional selection in overlapping prokaryotic genes". Trends in Genetics. 18 (5): 228–232. doi:10.1016/S0168-9525(02)02649-5.

Well spotted! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

On eggshell armour salesmanship

It's very difficult to not respond to hammer strikes. That's why the eggshell armour shop went bankrupt last year. Now if we found a way to convert rubber into plasticine we might be in business.Sorry, I just need to follow up on that metaphor train somehow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha, I think we'd do better marketing a fake nail as a hammer-strike decoy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If the animal world...

...had their own Wikipedia, they'd have cats as admins to guard off vandalism. 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of our vandals are like that octopus! Now I'm wondering if judicious treat deployment can get my cat to block people for me... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, a cat might not be able to get the job done, but a mouse can. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Normally I don't follow ArbCom...but...

...I hate like hell to drop more fluff on you back-to-back, but I was bored (stuck in living quarters in a horse trailer for one more day) so I went over to ArbCom just to see what was going on - you know, needing a little something to liven things up a bit from the everyday hum-drum. After reading your elaborate summary of the case, it brought back memories of when I worked as an independent producer for PBS affiliates, WKNO-Memphis and KUHT-Houston. There are quite a few similarities between the formalities of proper English used at PBS (early to late 90s), and what we see today regarding profanity used by WP editors who don't think a whole lot of it. One audio documentary in particular was circulating around PBS stations nationwide, and eventually ended up in our edit suite in Dallas, TX. You may have already heard this recording, but in case you haven't...it's a fun listen. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha! I'm stealing that one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you continue to talk common sense at Arbcom, as you did here, you may be thoroughly ostracised as being a smart alec. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

She is cloaked in it, Ritchie...she's batgirl! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I wish! Sorry, but arbcom has a common-sense quota. You'll find it in the third paragraph of the fifth section of part 2B of WP:ARBPROC#OMGWTFBBQ. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Need a cat

... I mean a cat image that says unmistakably ignore ignore ignore. Can't be said enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

ps: it's an anniversary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

My cats seem to be quite good at ignoring things! Specifically me. Specifically me saying things like "no, get off the table" and "don't chew that" and "don't sit on my keyboa.,lmkl....mklllkmkl <opens 9 new tabs> <minimizes window> <reboot>". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Cat does look good in ignoring, but it's not the first you see. The problem about ignoring is that it is hard to be distinguished from overlooking. I'd like a decent way of marking "seen but chosen not to react, to deescalate", - don't see though how that won't still escalate. True ignoring without reaction is probably safer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a kids' cartoon about this :) "I'm ignoring you!" "Hey! Didn't you notice I'm ignoring you?" "Stop ignoring the fact that I'm ignoring you!" Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Lovely! - Did you know that I made a DYK especially with you in mind, and got it, pictured? - It was great fun to sing the works for the English composer, anxious of what he would say, and he said "Fast zu ernst" (in German! - a title by Schumann, meaning: almost too serious), and "I almost forgot that I composed them.", and then conducted them, all once more, obviously enjoying it (while we had trouble guessing what he wanted). Photos were taken, but that was before digital photography. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Aww, thanks, photos or no photos, that illustration is cute :) Glad you enjoyed it! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Small world. (I just met a user who explains on the user page how their articles are connected, which would in my case cause a tangled display similar to the chemical ones you sometimes show.) A soprano sang with us right after she was engaged by a conductor, - and today the two are on the Main page. Coincidence? - Different: I recently wrote about an opera because it seemed named after a user (so much for connections), - now that user finds himself blocked indef and doesn't know why. How to proceed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The answer is probably "email arbcom", but hopefully someone else knows what's up, because I don't! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that this page should have the way to do that. I never had any reason, so don't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

arbcom-l

lists.wikimedia.org, or just send an email to User:Arbitration Committee. We seem to have a ton of bloated and useless pages, but the instructions are actually on this one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Something seems to have worked, - editing again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Spraggle upon waggle.jpg

"Did someone say bloated and useless?"

By "a ton of bloated and useless pages" I take it you mean "98% of Wikipedia"? If you want to email Arbcom, Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee is a more elegant solution and avoids messing about trying to work out if that little line in "arbcom-l" is a dash or a hyphen. – iridescent 2 08:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I never had reason to email arbcom, and hopefully never will have. The best they ever did was this 2 comments max limit (which was actually my idea). Just imagine how much less bloated discussions would become if that was teh rule for all. I still try to follow but made 3 (or even 6?) comments here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's make that a rule for all AN/ANI threads... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I was going to respond but I was distracted by your cat's magnificent belly floof. I had to drag my own chubby, floofy gray cat out of his spot by the window just to stick my face in his fur. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Meet Siam...the cat that adorns my user page - speaks volumes. 🙀 ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Love it! That cat must've been hitting the 'nip. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I expanded just a bit to make her fit DYK demands. Please check. Too bad the research of cat cuteness has not resulted in an article. - You don't need to tell me that some people think to make a selection of recordings is OR, - we recently had Klaus Huber's list, see talk. I fear for Joe, DYK? So he said fuck off twice and received an indef, and now that is requested for arbitration. - I think a junior admin made a mistake with that block, and we should forgive him and be silent. - What cat for the case request? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Your article looks good! Cat cuteness may be red, but at least we still have Cats and the Internet. The look my cat just gave me when I shoved him off the desk was definitely uncivil, maybe I should put him on the arb pages :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You have Cats That Look Like Hitler (which has survived nine years without deletion) if that helps ‑ Iridescent 07:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Poor cats looking like Hitler. Always helps DYK if you mention Nazi, sadly. - Now we need another cat image, for "You said what I feel better than I could". Opabinia regalis, I will make your post the starting point for my question for the candidates. To mention infoboxes is forbidden ;) - Look. I just saw Götterdämmerung, and think I won the battle of pleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

But no Infinite Cat Project? I think my old kitty is in there somewhere...

I can't believe people are talking about candidates and elections already. Didn't we just do that? Maybe 🐱 wants to run, he always wants to be on the keyboard while I'm trying to edit! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I just hope that you will run. As long as the others listen to you, it doesn't matter who they are :) - Nice coincidence with the archived case: the wake-up call for justice in our time on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm still in denial that it's even November yet! Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

that pesky I/P area again...

Ok, so a question came up here, how is this to be interpreted? Take an example, in an article under ARBPIA sanctions:

First addition by Editor 1: 14:43, 30 October 2017

Removed by Editor 2: 16:51, 31 October 2017

Second addition of same material by Editor 1: 18:59, 31 October 2017

My question is, has Editor 1 broken the 1 RR rule, as they reverted less than 24 hours after Editor 2 reverted? Or is Editor 1 in the clear, as they have more than 24 hours since their own last edit? I know I intended that Editor 1 should be in the clear, but is that what I got? (Hmm.... I have been burned before!) Should perhaps this go to WP:ARCA? Huldra (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, I hate to tell someone to go to ARCA but nothing makes me feel like I've run into the Peter Principle quite like DS procedure questions :) My reaction to that description is that if anything really depends on the exact timing of Editor 1's next edit then there are bigger problems than whether or not they strictly followed 1RR. But this seems to be the same question that's come up before, about whether 1RR is meant to be a per-edit or per-user restriction, and to be honest I don't remember what the conclusion was.... probably Callanecc knows, he's the procedure expert! Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll wait for the answer from Callanecc, then, before I run off to WP:ARCA. (Btw, thanks for the Peter Principle link. I knew the expression, but not the name. ....and I feel like a 100% idiot at times, editing in the I/P area.... Oh well.) Huldra (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I always just called it "promoted to level of incompetence", didn't know it actually had a name.

Editor 1 has breached the prohibition, yes (If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours). That sentence was included to replace the previous 'consensus required' provision which required that a consensus be formed before something could be reinstated after it had been removed. It's intention being to reverse the status quo which exists else where, that it's harder to get new stuff out of an article (two reverts) than it is to put it in (one addition then a revert). Having said that though, some of the things an admin would take into consideration would be whether the editor knew that what they were doing breached the restriction and whether the edit actually had anything to do with ARBPIA (notwithstanding that the whole page is covered by the restriction). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Callanecc. Sigh, its back to WP:ARCA, then. The intention was indeed to fix the old order, where it took two editors to keep out the additions of one editor. As an editor in this area I like fixed rules: 1RR, or 1 edit per 24 hours is one such rule. With the above interpretations, one could get blocked even with less than 1 edit pr 24 hours, and that was never my intention. Huldra (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what this does. It keeps the edits of one editor out of an article by stopping them from reverting the revert. The change from the last version was it got rid of the consensus required version which created more headaches then it solved. I can't, off the top of my head, think of another way to make this work. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it, it is that editor1 make an edit more than 24 hours after his last edit to the article, and you say he breached the prohibition. That was never my intention. (The "consensus required" was indeed a mess up, and something none of the "us regulars" in the area had asked for.) Huldra (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

So you were thinking that the "24 hours" in sentence I quoted above was measured from the edit by the original editor which introduced the material, rather than the measured from editor B's revert of the material being inserted? I see where you're coming from, but that would mean this scenario would be acceptable:

Editor A inserts material at 00:01, 1 Jan
Editor B reverts at 23:50, 1 Jan
Editor A reverts at 00:05, 2 Jan

Editor B can't revert it for nearly 23 hours so the material ends up staying in the article anyway.

Under the current system editor A wouldn't be able to reinsert the material until 23:51, 2 Jan which circumvents the status quo issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Callanecc yeah, you are right, that was the way I was thinking. And you write "editor B can't revert it for nearly 23 hours so the material ends up staying in the article anyway.".....but that is only because editor B was late reverting. If we had, say, early reverts:

Editor A inserts material at 00:01, 1 Jan
Editor B reverts at 00:02, 1 Jan
Editor A reverts at 00:03, 2 Jan
Editor B reverts at 00:04, 2 Jan

..then the material would have stayed mostly out of the article.

Actually, thinking about it, in your version, (lets call it Version 2), late reverts, has

Editor A inserts material at 00:01, 1 Jan
Editor B reverts at 23:50, 1 Jan
Editor A reverts at 23:51, 2 Jan
Editor B reverts at 23:52, 3 Jan

….the material stays in the article, about half of the time

Version 2, early revert would have

Editor A inserts material at 00:01, 1 Jan
Editor B reverts at 00:02, 1 Jan
Editor A reverts at 00:03, 2 Jan
Editor B reverts at 00:04, 3 Jan

….the material stays in the article, about half the time, in the long run.

I think I can live with both; either Version 1 (my version), or Version 2. Both are much better that what we had before December 2016, namely that A's first edit didn't count towards reverts, so that in a 1 to 1 situation, the editor inserting info always won.

I just need to be 100% sure which version is valid! And as you can see from the discussion which brought me here, I'm not alone in being unsure, Huldra (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can relate, Huldra. The problem I see with it is that admin action is based on an editor's patterned behavior, not content, the latter of which should actually be the priority for the benefit of the project; i.e. getting the article right, although I understand perfectly well why it's important to keep behavior in check and why our PAGs are the way they are for the most part. Unfortunately, the latter doesn't eliminate the fact that behavior is an internal matter, or that our readers could care less about it. Their primary concern is having free/easy access to a non-politicized, factually accurate, NPOV article. I liken our editing disputes vs reader expectations in much the same way as I view a customer going into the grocery store to buy a pound of hamburger and by chance, arriving at the same time the store manager is arguing with the butcher over (a) how the hamburger was packaged, (b) the fact that the hamburger is not 100% sirloin per the label, and (c) having an incorrect date stamp on it. Looking at it from a customer's POV, would you keep shopping there? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, Atsme, I got my first proper block this spring, totally out of the blue (for me!)...as I had no idea that I had broken any rules. And that was not.....a pleasant experience, to put it very mildly. So this time I want to make 100 % sure that I understand correctly. As I edit in a controversial area, there are no lack of candidates to report me to the drama boards if I get anything wrong...(Last time I was reported to AN/I it was because I had misread 200 BCE, instead of 200 CE. Oh well.) And I'm sure you are familiar with the quote, misattributed to Otto von Bismarck: "Laws are like sausages — it is best not to see them being made." We can add Wikipedia to that. Huldra (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Whew, Callanecc to the rescue! :) The "half and half" net result seems reasonable enough to me, in a two-person dispute with no other input and where the material is disputed but not obviously inappropriate (BLP violations and so forth). Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, "half and half" result from a one to one encounter seems reasonable (To anyone reading this: it rarely, if ever, ends up this way. Normally we end up on the talk, and tweak the material until both parts can live with it). Though actually both version 1 and version 2 can end up in the "half and half" result. But I assume you meant version 2? Thats ok, but we need to "spread the word"...as you can see from the discussion that brought me here: presently editors are most confused..Huldra (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want to spread the word, and this is a question that's come up often, an ARCA section with a linkable result is probably more effective for that job than a talk-page section. Sorry for being useless, I'm traveling at the moment (hence the alt) and only looking in via plane wifi (which I ought to be using for real work, but never mind... :) Opabinia externa (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Mock


<mock>

And tell the pleasant prince this mock of his
Hath turn'd his balls to gun-stones; and his soul
Shall stand sore charged for the wasteful vengeance
That shall fly with them: for many a thousand widows
Shall this his mock mock out of their dear husbands;
Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down;
And some are yet ungotten and unborn
That shall have cause to curse the Dauphin's scorn.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Mock. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

"Turn'd his balls to gun-stones"? Henry has a way with words there. If nothing else, at least I'll be the most mocked candidate in the election! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

🐱

What did happen to 🐱 that it looks so surprised? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Nobody gave him any treats. How could you? 🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀 Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yaaay! 😹 Babou 🐱 (meow! 🐾) 03:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holiday Greetings

Want more yams? No thanks, I'm stuffed.	Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
	A Thanksgiving tale... Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns). The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?” The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”. The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?” ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, happy turkey day to you too! Luckily my bird came pre-dead, because I'm sure I'd need more blunderbusses than I could carry... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For some much needed words of wisdom. Technically this should be an Arbitrator's Barnstar, but I don't think there is one of those. GRuban (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@GRuban: Thanks! Though I admit that when someone says something like "words of wisdom", I instinctively look behind me to see which wise person they were really talking about... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The reverse Dunning-Kruger effect? JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Really? I thought you'd look straight at Newyorkbrad, who else could it be? No, it's you. -- GRuban (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Call it the Regurk-Gninnud effect. I guess I should be looking for Darbkroywen the Wise One... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)