User talk:Strange Passerby

11:07Please note that it is currently 11:07 AM BST.

Strange Passerby's talk page procedures

If you leave a message here
I will reply here. Please watch my page for replies. I will leave a {{talkback}} message only if you are a new editor, or if you specifically request so in your message or on your talk page.

If I leave a message on your talk page
I will watch it for replies. You need not post here. Please avoid using {{talkback}} on my page unless it's urgent. If you do leave a talkback message, please timestamp it. Note that talkback notices are liable to be rolled back or removed at any time, unless they have been responded to in the same thread. If you reply here to a message I leave you, I will continue the discussion here.

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

1952 Winter Olympics FTC

Thanks for your interest in doing an FTC around the 1952 Winter Games. One question. I'm working on an enormous FTC that, given my current abilities and time, will likely never be completed. My only concern is that if this project picks up steam I don't want this 1952 Winter Games FTC to throw a wrench in that project. Do you forsee it being an issue? H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You know what, the more I think about it the more it doesn't matter. Let's do it. What can I do the help with the 1952 Winter Olympics medal table? I have little experience doing FL's so I'll follow your lead. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There really isn't that much needed. The medal table needs probably a stronger lead of a few more paragraphs, and a few nice pictures, but otherwise it's about there, based on the other medal table FLs. The "list" portion of it is the table itself, and obviously that's already done. It's only the writing bit and that shouldn't take too long. Probably could be done by this weekend and sent to FLC on Sunday or Monday. Once that hits FL then I think FTC should be a pretty easy breeze. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And Courcelles just reminded me that Venues of the 1952 Winter Olympics would also need an FLC, although that's also quite close imo. Has quite a bit of prose and that one needs some touching up of the list bits. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, I can start in on the prose for the medal table list. RL concerns may limit my efforts today but I'll get on it straight away. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I can do Venues of the 1952 Winter Olympics. I created and did most of the work on the list, I've brought Venues of the 1994 Winter Olympics (the other Norway Games) to FL, and was actually thinking about FLing the 1952 list too. I can move it up on my priority list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be great. :) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

H1nkles, I've expanded the medal table article very slightly. Right now, with some pictures I'd say it'd be similar to 2010 Winter Olympics medal table, with bare facts. Alternatively, we could go for a bit more padding and more stats about the medal table, like in 1972 Winter Olympics medal table. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok I've added some info in a Highlights section. It reads a bit choppy and probably needs some finessing. Take out what you don't like, add what you think is missing. There aren't a lot of great pics for the 1952 Games, I've looked. If you know of some athlete pics that I couldn't find please add them. I'll have limited computer access until Monday so if you feel as though it's ready for nomination at FLC please go for it. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So, someone told me that maybe FTC, if they're being a bit snarky, will want all the SPORT at the 1952 Winter Olympics and NATION at the 1952 Winter Olympics articles to meet their FT criteria too. That's a line of thinking I hadn't previously considered. Your thoughts, H1nkles? Anyway, I'll still send the medal table to FLC some time Sunday when I've time. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This would be an overview topic, which would mean that "every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic should also be within the scope of a non-lead article that is included in the topic." One could bring up events at the 1952 Winter Olympics; this would bypass having to bring every sport plus the opening and closing ceremonies. The events could then again (potentially, we need to be able to "argue" for a structure even if we have no intension to work on it) become a new overview topic. Then the multi-event sports would themselves become potential subtopics of that topic again. The country-at-the-games-articles would also need to be included indirectly in the topic, so a list of nations or something would have to be created, although one could always argue that the medal table is a list of nations, and that the medal table would be the head topic for a subtopic of the nations. In my Oslo Metro topic, there are three levels of topics and the nomination went fine, even though only six of about 150 potential articles were included. Although not altogether active, some feedback may be possible at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions. Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I confess to having little experience with FTC or the mindset of the delegates. I'm for pushing forward with the overview lists (Venues and Medal table), we could add the Events list and give it a run. The medal table isn't a complete list of nations, so perhaps a list of participating nations is necessary? This would create an overview topic that should cover all the relevant issues. I think we can do this and make the argument that you don't have to include all the Nation and Sport at 1952 Winter Olymipcs articles. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've started work on the Events at the 1952 Winter Olympics. There was not much there so I added a bit of prose and some refs. To my knowledge there aren't any Events at YEAR Olympics FLs so it's hard to determine what else I need to add to this list. Can you think of anything I should include? It's pretty minimal right now. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. I was thinking maybe we'd expand that list to list every single event that took place in each sport, perhaps marking them (background colours, as well as a symbol or list column for WP:ACCESS) for men's, women's or mixed. We could introduce columns like "first contested at Olympics" (women's 10k Xcountry would be 1952; men's ice hockey would be 1920). I'm not sure how much detail we should go for when listing the individual events; perhaps defending Olympic champion and new Olympic champion? Would be a little cross-over with the medal winners list although I don't think that'd be too bad.

Alternatively, we could leave this at stub, and if asked, claim the events are covered by said medal winners list since every event is indeed already covered there. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards your final comment about leaving it as a stub. I asked for input at FLC and Ramblinman thinks it's a fork and we shouldn't bother trying to get it to FL. I see his and your point and I think for now I'll leave it alone. I feel good about taking the article, venues, medal table and medal winners to FTC and take our chances. Do you agree? H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't need an article called Events at the 1952 Winter Olympics at all for a featured topic. Pretend you'd never thought of it. Delete/redirect, and carry on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rambling (sorry I got your name wrong above), I think we're on the same page and I'll quit spinning my wheels. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, so that's the medal table now an FL. Arsenikk, do you need any help on the venues list? :) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright issues at Vivian Balakrishnan

Please review the situation for me. I cannot deal with these games by myself anymore, and I need a copyright expert (especially when it comes to dating the blog). I could have sworn Balakrishnan's blog wasn't Creative Commons before the copyright dispute -- when I used it as a source it was "all rights reserved", and the portrait subpage cited isn't linked anywhere from the main page.

One issue is that of COI -- it means that one of the editors (or "the editor" if necessary) has connections to the blog, perhaps as a public relations manager. Hence, you have the silly action like attempting to remove the otherwise perfectly fine Breast Cancer Foundation photo with the more official portrait (and not even attempting to move it somewhere else in the article) -- and removal of this image occurred before without explanation and without replacement. I don't know what other people would be so adamant to have their language on the page, either.

The other is still copyright. The editor claims the material here on his blog is older than the official government biographies and since the material is licensed under CC, therefore text from this section can be freely copied into the article. How valid is this claim? How do we ascertain who is the real original author of the work?

I suppose the COI very much disturbs me, since the editor refuses to admit that "okay, I'm part of the web team and I went on there and changed the licensing for the site". elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an entry in the Wayback Machine archive for his site before today, so it's impossible to tell if they switched the content licenses. In any case, since the same text is found on official government sites with a copyright notice, we need to err on the side of caution and reject it as a copyright violation, if it is (re)added. The best way forward might be to email Dr Vivian himself, especially at any personal email that can be found where he might not have minders sifting through his email.

There is a major issue here with the side you are fighting against. Unfortunately this appears to have become a large crusade, with many meatpuppets and sockpuppets in use. This is not to say that they are completely wrong, because it is true that you have also made questionable edits, although these have certainly not been on a scale as large as the other side.

I think it would be prudent to call for mediation, whether informal and related to content/conduct or formal and related to content, in this situation. Failing which, escalating to arbitration over conduct issues might be necessary, although I am sure you are aware this would also mean your actions will come under scrutiny. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The biography on his site appears to be updated in May 2011 (just after the general election). It even contains images of the CV that was included in the election manifesto that was published in April 2011. On the other hand, the government website is dated June 2011. If there are any doubts you can always email him at the address provided on his blog.

Furthermore, it should be obvious that the language used by La goutte de pluie is, in good faith, perhaps due to her less than perfect command of the language. Wikipedia language should be concise wherever possible. Her pattern of edits, (which you have highlighted as questionable), suggest that she is not focussing on making Wikipedia better, but pursuing her own political interests. By all means escalate this to arbitration if you feel that this is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.168 (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The government website is dated June 2011, but has contained the text since a long time ago. This, from January 2006, for example. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Which was obviously written by him too. The point is that the material on his blog is licensed under Creative Commons. He does not lose his original rights even if the government reserves rights on their sites. Why don't you email him if you are unsure? Use of this material is consistent with WP:ABOUTSELF, WP;SELFPUB and WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Thank you also for highlighting the older version which also illustrates the amount of material that La goutte is trying to suppress for reasons best known to herself. Spurious copyright issues should not be used to suppress verifiable data from Wikipedia. I will reinsert this material in due course. Thank you very much. 220.255.1.147 (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange Passerby, I would like to highlight to you that the edit war about Vivian Balakrishnan's schools only happened AFTER La goutte de pluie got upset when she couldn't wiki link words like "agenda" to "gay agenda". She had made no efforts to rewrite the section after removing the original copyrighted text and protecting in late June. So I rewrote it. She started accusing after I questioned her intentions in linking words "agenda" to "gay agenda" repeatedly. The same thing happened on the Singaporean general elections 2011 page. You know it. 202.156.13.10 (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed my page!

Thank you. :) It's been bugging me. :P --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, it was getting to annoy me too—and I'm merely a TPS, let alone the talk page "owner". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

results of the sockpuppet investigation

If I interpret the investigation results properly, Alverya only shows up as "likely" rather than "confirmed" because he edits from the same workplace; however Alverya is quite different in behaviour from the other editors; and we know that Alverya edits from Ministry IPs.

Furthermore, these IPs never explicitly deny that they edit on the behalf of an interested party or the government -- they prefer to use "you too" arguments like "but you're a lesbian" instead. Why the authorities would bother with enforcing their particular version of copyrighted text is beyond me, but I now really really suspect that there is some sort government-sanctioned editing going on, if not at any high level, at least some sort of silly YPAP-coordinated activity as has been suspected elsewhere on the internet for years. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

INT

Sorry for the re-inclusion of the possible discovery of water on Mars. I thought the section below was a discussion. Is it not necessary follow the procedure (highlighted in yellow) for nomination? I also noticed that the corresponding article was not present when you nominated. The rules seem vague and I'm in the dark. Please enlighten. Thanks. Suraj T 07:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There are no hard and fast "rules" on how to nominate at ITN. The template is included as a guideline for new editors at ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I'll support your nomination then. If you are interested, I've started the article Seasonal flows on warm martian slopes. Plz have a look. Cheers. Suraj T 08:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie

Would like your input over here. Also can you help to drop a note to User_talk:Zhanzhao about it as his page is protected. Thanks.202.156.13.11 (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

not supported by sources

Since I basically took time out of lab to add some significant references and additions to the article, it would be very kind of you to flag or remove individual problematic statements, rather than reverting my entire addition, which I am sure you don't really find problematic. I am unaware of which particular statements are unsupported. Is it the one about the Barisan Sosialis? (see: Barisan Sosialis.) Do you object because while election sources say, "the narrowest election since 1965" they don't explicitly refer to the 1963 election? Given that the 1963 election is sourced, this seems curious. Do you object to the characterisation of George Yeo as being popular online and having received "a flood of support"? I think this is supported too? I am simply at a loss at which statements you find problematic. Thaaaaaaaaanks. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Just wanted to mention, I'm not anti-admin. I've never considered a 'list of problems' page, and its unlikely I would. But I do think editors ought to be allowed to organize their thoughts in a way that works for them, and in userspace especially, which is our own domain to a small extent, we ought to be given more latitude than elsewhere. People have different learning styles, visual, verbal, tactile, auditory, and for some people, I can see where they might need to write things down before they present it to others, or just simply keep the info so they don't lose track of it.

If I actually thought Surturz was trying to game the system or pull a fast one, I would be opposed to his page. But I've looked at the page history and it never was mean spirited or revenge oriented. It was simple, short and professional.

I'm not particularly impressed with how he organized it or anything, but its super mild and I'm really puzzled why people seem to be so much in an uproar over it. I've seen much more contentious and bitter stuff in normal Talk pages and it doesn't get anyone blocked, banned, or deleted.

I'm just really puzzled why some people care so much what's in the user pages anyway, and if its not a copyright violation or BLP problem, I don't know how much I'd really worry about it. But everyone is different :) -- Avanu (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the kind note. Clearly, we strongly disagree on this. I have my (more personal) reasons why that I won't mention, but at the very least I think in its current form, it's problematic. If Surturz were to change the page to be more of a discussion of particular actions, including the reasons why he feel the admin was wrong, rather than simply listing admin actions he didn't like, that would be much more conducive and I would be far less inclined to !vote to delete it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand in the discussion, the page was only 18 hours old when it got speedily deleted, so all this stuff over the last few days is just drama arising out of that. Its entirely possible that Surturz might have changed it or simply deleted it if more time had passed, or if *any* admin had just taken the time to discuss it on his User talk page, or that page, but maybe not also, but it sure would have saved a lot of drama if it had. -- Avanu (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

AN notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Just a formality, since the person who started the thread seems to have forgotten to inform you.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The irony, eh? Thanks for the note but I'd already seen it at Worm's talk page and subsequently at AN. At this moment I'm pretty much ready to disengage totally; it's a waste of time trying to argue further. StrPby (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Arizona hurricanes/archive1

Hi. I modified the list to try to make the page less article-like. Mind having another look at the FLC? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Done and supported. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The right to reply and defend myself

I'm entitled to reply to people - esp those who are simply joining in an attack on me based on "disruption" (sustained or otherwise) that I simply did not do (snowball Afd aside - I missed the first hour-long one). I just followed a procedure that is a mainstay of Wikpedia. Defending myself is not "repeating things over and over again". My comments with David were on his 'talk page - you cannot call that disrupting Wikipedia. If people don't want to read my comments there they can just avoid them. From some people there is real "NO CENSORSHIP HERE" POV going on when they are going after me (attacking my mental health for example - honestly). The last word was that I am "disruptive" and I had crap from people as a consequence of that - it's not my fault this has gone on and on. People won't leave me without some kind of smackdown. It's just not right that I should have to accept that. It is not a case of "the community has spoken" at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree the personal attack on you accusing you of having unstable mental health was unwarranted and way over the top. That being said, though, have you at least looked at and read WP:Disruptive editing? Disruptive editing can happen in good faith. I know you believed your actions to have been in good faith, but they can still end up being disruptive. Perhaps there is a problem in communicating this point; many people only assume being "disruptive" to be acting in bad faith.

I have much sympathy for the personal attack against you, but you must recognise that people believe you have been disruptive. Regardless of whether they are right or not (history will be the judge), you have to stop and take a look at the situation and see why they have characterised your actions as such. Always remember that while it's good to follow procedure, it's also good to carry some common sense when editing. I would strongly suggest to you that if you believe on-the-spot "reporting" of developing events is bad for Wikipedia, that you make a proposal to that effect at WP:Village pump (policy) and try to get consensus for a moratorium on such articles. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I said a while back that I'm planning to take it elsewhere. I'm thinking of a RFC on the general 'meta' matter, but I might go to village pump first. The thing is that I've not been allowed any closure at all. Every time I defend myself over an OTT comment I get a new disparaging comment based on not shutting up. It's farcical really. The reaction to me got OTT so quickly that was the problem - it's just cycled from there. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Strange Passerby. You have new messages at RobertMfromLI's talk page.
Message added 22:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

RFA created at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RobertMfromLI‎, if you care to chime in there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You've done a good job with the nom, so I've just added my voice in support. Not much to add anyway. :) StrPby (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2002 Asian Games medal table/archive1

Most of your concerns have either been addressed or replied to. Regards — Bill william compton^Talk 14:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Strange Passerby. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie.
Message added 05:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autobiography

I noticed that one of the editors on Tony Tan Keng Yam, User:Tempwikisc, wrote an autobiography about himself, which probably explains why he is not above COI. You may wish to comment on the afd. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 11:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)