User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights

In support of the Karen National Union and their ongoing struggle against genocide.

Letting you know about discussion of flag icon issue in List of living supercentenarians

My apologizes, I reverted your revert (it was my first revert ever, and I was using TW for basically for the first time). So my edit summary apparently got cut off here. I did type, "BNL, you are aware of the discussion at VP, but check out Bermi" but edit summary was cut off. The last part was going to be, "but check out Bermicourt's edit here". Bermicourt made a very valid point over there, "It sounds like you (David in DC) are saying let's abandon debate and all those on one side (i.e. who don't like flags) should now attack pages they don't approve. Is that really how Wikipedia is meant to work?"

That was why I replied at VP, "Yikes, Bermicourt has made a very valid point since policy has not been changed YET through a formal consensus process, not through discussions....{snip}.... I do support the removal of flag icons from most lists on Wikipedia. I only ask that the guideline be changed via consensus so I can defend the removal of flag icons to the other editors -- just linking them to this ongoing discussion does no good."

Makes sense if we wait until the guideline is formally changed before everyone starts to revert and revert. Agreed? Cheers, CalvinTy 14:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Swiss International Hotels Collection

I have no experience whatsoever with WP:AFC; however, I'd say that such an article could be nominated for speedy deletion per G11, as that is a criterion that applies to every namespace. That said, I did not delete the page, however, because I'd rather let the AfC people deal with it, since it is nothing that needs to go as soon as possible... Sorry I was not of more help. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Timecamp

Hello The Blade of the Northern Lights. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Timecamp, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened; I forgot that web-based ≠ web content. Sorry; thanks for cleaning up my mess. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No probs. It was actually a borderline case... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 11 April 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

David in DC's misbehavior

Blade, it's going to take some time, but I hope you will eventually come around to see the problem with David in DC's editing style:

1. He makes accusations without gathering facts 2. He colludes with others, buddying up to built support 3. He makes jokes that put down others...not so funny

When I read comments like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_in_DC#A_bit_of_fun

This is the height of arrogance on his part. Adults on the 110 Club aren't there to "indoctrinate" others but to serve as mentors and guides. The 110 Club was founded by teenagers. Unlike other clubs discussing supercentenarians, which have monetary gambling on who is going to die next, pictures of supercentenarians as if they were dead, profanity, etc., the 110 Club has been attempting to temper the sometimes-misbehavior that is common to teenagers with adult mentorship. Here's an example of a non-mentored discussion by teens:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/59/puzzles-other-games/morbid-old-people-betting-game-thread-548102/index3.html

I have seen worse.

David in DC needs to apologize, yet again, for yet another insensitive comment that was so off base, it represents a 180-degree turn from reality.Ryoung122 22:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The teens contacted me regarding their group, asking me to join. Unlike many who focus on just their career, I took time out to serve in a capacity that is leading to respect for supercentenarians and a skeptical sense that Carl Sagan called a "baloney detector." I see nothing wrong with exposing pseudo-supercentenarians as frauds when evidence shows they are.

It should also be pointed out that most of those on the 110 Club and longtime Wikipedia editors (such as Nick Ornstein, Brendan(ology), etc) were in fact Wikipedia editors first, joining the 110 Club as a place to discuss supercentenarians. I'm sending you the message but it is really directed at David in DC. Perhaps you can serve as a liasion and gently coax him to tone down his casting aspersions.

Sincerely

Ryoung122 22:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Reversions without knowledge

You recently reverted text on an article that you didn't even work on claiming it "wasn't objective". How is it possible you would know that without even the slightest knowledge of the subject. I see nothing in the articles talk pages where you have discussed that with other editors and a consensus was reached . We are dealing with a POV pushing editor right now that keeps reverting text and ou aren't participating in the solution to the problem, you are adding to it. Please participate in the articles construction by adding to it rather than adding opinion.98.149.114.34 (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Nor do I see where you've gained any consensus. I said I didn't know much about the subject, not that I knew nothing. Now that I look over the talkpage, it's rather filled with venom, and I'm thinking I'll leave this snakepit alone. Be advised, however, thta you're rapidly hitting 3RR. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh I understand your tag team with WAID (who reverted twice ) calling you in to continue his edit warring. How its mean't to trick editors into the 3RR. "Venom"?! That is the most ridiculous accusation and clearly states you have no knowledge the discussion at all. Next time, actually read the discussion section, participate if you wish but offing these opinions of that discussion without reading it and reverting without even reading the edits adds nothing to the article at all. Everything in the article was completely sourced and from the same sources WAIDs was from. If you intend to make accusations please post them where someone neutral can decide. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no stake in this article, and I've never really interacted with WhatamIdoing; I'm a 20 year old history major with no vested interest beyond adhering to a neutral point of view. What discussion (if you could call it that) I saw was you railing on a couple other editors, who were telling you to stop inserting BLP violations. I read through and found I agreed with them. You're not going to intimidate me; hopefully someone more experienced than I will drop in. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Intimidate you?! Railing on other editors?! Utter nonsense! I've done no such thing and I challenge you to go to the article talk page and point out anywhere were I have"personally" railed on other editors. Where there is any "venom" . I'm sorry but you haven't read the article or the discussion page and you know nothing about what you have reverted. How exactly does your majoring in history apply to gender dysphoria or sexual identity issues ? Have you read TMWWBQ? No , I'm pretty sure you haven't. You saw no "venom" and I've "railed" on no one. Assuming that this is fabrication I am fairly sure . Please come on the talk page and accuse me. Well, if you aren't too "intimidated". You should know something about the article before you revert, otherwise it's pure vandalism. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

By ranting at me on my talkpage, you're merely making my point for me; this is the sort of acerbic attitude I saw on the talkpage. I haven't read the whole book, no, but I did look through the reviews, which seem to be another point of contention. No, I won't fling around accusations, I don't see how that will be productive. All I want is to straighten the article out; if we can tone down the invective on all sides here, it should be possible. And would you please indent your comments; it's not that hard. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Too late, you've already flung around accusations and worse , you are using them to revert an article you haven't read. Yes, responding is ranting I suppose. Tone down the "invective"? I have no idea what you are talking about because I've said nothing personal. You should actually read discussions/article/book before claim bias and revert. IMO , you haven't and that is vandalism. Discussion over unless you want t argue your points on the article talk page. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Gladly I would, except that real life calls right now, and I likely won't be around for a long while. I did take a look at the version on the talkpage, and it doesn't seem totally unreasonable. If you give me a day or two, I'll finish the book; I will not pretend to be the arbiter of content, but I can at least offer my view up. I honestly can't understand what is so fantastically important about this book that you're drowning each other in reams of text (on all sides; this is in no way your fault alone); I see you've made an offer on the talkpage at getting some 3rd parties involved, and that looks good. I'd suggest that brevity will aid you in that process as well. I'll try to, if not satisfy everyone, at least keep a level head; my main areas of editing involve genocide and repression, so I can handle this. If I do find myself in over my head, I will quietly slip away. But now, I have things to do IRL, so over and out. And by the way, you may not agree with what I did, but it was definitely not vandalism. If you feel the need to revert me, I won't revert again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Challenged CSD on JabStar

Hi, I'm just dropping by to let you know I challenged your A7 CSD on JabStar. In my assessment, the claims that he has over 1500 performances, and has appeared both on television and in media coverage is a sufficient assertion of importance to survive criteria A7. I have replaced the A7 with a prod on notability grounds. Monty₈₄₅ 19:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's fine; thanks for letting me know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page about NPP

Hi BOTNL -- thanks for your comment on my talk page. I actually don't think that NP patrollers are terrible people, and I'm sorry if I've been coming across that way. (I've been wondering.) Essentially --probably like many of us-- I have conflicted and contradictory views on patrolling. First, I think it's essential: if people weren't doing it, we'd be overrun with spam and vandalism and nonsense. Obviously it needs to get done, and it's good that people are willing to do it. My impression is that it's exhausting and thankless, and that patrollers often feel deluged with the sheer volume of crap that gets posted. So I have empathy for that too. On the other hand, I do think that some patrollers probably tend to bias towards false positives -- their goal is to prevent crap from appearing on Wikipedia, and I think they believe that if a few innocents get caught in the crossfire, that's okay. I, though, believe that the cost of false positives is higher than we've historically believed. We know now that the total number of active editors in the Wikimedia projects is slowly declining, that new editors are getting discouraged and quitting faster than ever before. We know that reversions and deletions of edits by new editors have been climbing over time. And when we ask people why they've quit, many of them say they were discouraged by being reverted and deleted and warned. So, I do believe that patrollers need to upwards-prioritize not shooting the nuns and tourists :-) (i.e., good faith newbies). I think in order to do that, patrollers will probably need new tools and mechanisms that support different/new actions such as moving articles (i.e., to incubators) rather than deleting them, giving friendly feedback as well as warnings, etc. etc. etc. I know there are lots of people thinking about / working on this issue, which I think is good. And by the way thank you for the link to the WIHSD essay: I don't think I'd read it before, and I liked it too :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I jump in on your conversation (I followed it with interest) - but I want to point out one other thing that may be a misunderstanding, but that I think is important. Your positioning of the issues is very "there's the WMF, and then there's US". I think it's really important to remember that a lot of the folks on the community department staff (and the tech staff, and global dev, and almost all of them) are self-identified Wikimedians. I still am a community elected administrator on the English Wikipedia and Meta, and I got my start (check the history on User:Philippe) doing new page patrol and CSD work. I've been there. So has User:Jamesofur, and User:Steven (WMF), and any number of the others. So we get it. Today, I was working on the guiding program some, and it's a struggle to not use templates. The trick is to make better and smarter templates that don't feel like templates, I think. We ran an interesting experiment over the weekend where we asked people (non-Wikimedians) to identify whether a message was left by a bot or a human, and you'd be shocked (or, at least, I was) by the number of them that though the templates were human-written. That's a GOOD thing, it means our prospective new users may think that too. But regardless, my point here is.... please don't think we don't feel your pain. We do. But it's because it's so important that we (and Sue) feel like it's necessary to bring it up -despite that it means the work will get harder. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem; actually, that's pretty neat. The "us and them" distinction is definitely not as stark as the Pink Floyd song would suggest. A better template design would be good, although that's so far beyond my technical abilities that I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot-pole. I obviously don't want to disparage your work here; you're the ones who keep the WMF running for people like me to use it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem

Happens to all of us now and then. Have a good night, see you around! Neutrality^talk 05:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding speedy deletion of Probation Board for Northern Ireland

Sorry to disturb you but i was wondering why you set the page for speedy deletion? I am new to wiki and i am still learning the process so i accept i will inevitably get things wrong. the reason was under G11 promotional or advertising. PBNI is a public sector agency (government) and was unaware the information would be deemed advertising seeing they do not sell anything.

Regards

Itewhitten (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments - will try to reconstruct the article in a more appropriate way. Itewhitten (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Kimber James

I find your tone innapropriate. I altered it to a partial filmography highliting notable films and no more than six as the porno guide instructs. I stated the reason for the different picture in the different talk page and no one has reponded to that dialogue. The genital reference i returned as i am going to contrast with other trans porn stars — Preceding unsigned comment added by RafikiSykes (talk • contribs) 01:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Anne Scheiber

Anne Scheiber is a famous figure who gained notoriety in the New York area for her actions. Please reconsider the template you put on the article Zobango (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Next Time...

...you´d better wait a while before you place speedy deletion requests, as your requests seem speedyer, than the deletion by itself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wardwell&action=history . Regards. -- Gary Dee (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

PokeHomsar

PokeHomsar is just a troll. He got mad because of the Ray William Johnson deal and the fact that I wouldn't except those terrible articles as references. Every opportunity he has, he make comments towards me even if I say something in the slightest. He has a grudge against me and will say anything because he can't get over it. It's childish. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Vincelord

I wanted to thank you for your recent complements about the recent articles i've created, However i now feel i am being singled out by WikiDan61. Everytime i create a new article he proposes it for deletion and then orders me to stop creating pages, He keeps telling me that the people are not worthy of a page, But i've checked the actor stubs category and there are countless actors with nearly no credits and they have pages. No one eles has an issue with my articles only WikiDan61, I feel i am being unfairly targeted by him, Do you have any advice on what i should be about this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincelord (talk • contribs) 14:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Vincelord

I wanted to thank you for your help with the problem i've been having. But WikiDan61 said, rather bluntly, for me to stop creating pages and i would like to know am i still allowed to put up pages if i think the person is notable, I understand that every actor can't have a page. but it can be hard for me to decide notability when everyone has diffrent views on the matter,I'm concerned if i were to put up another page WikiDan61 or another editor doesn't like, could my account be blocked, I don't want to put up pages that may be deleted, but with so many actor stub pages that are left up, deciding who to give a page to is difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincelord (talk • contribs) 14:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello The Blade of the Northern Lights,

I don't understand what you are requesting speedy deletion for,i hope is not the article i just created concerning the university in Lafia.Please revisit your request so that the new article is not affected.Thanks-yours Earlymen message me! 07:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Good,

But it won't affect my edit count anyway,will it?Earlymen message me! 07:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

O.k,but do it in a way it won't affect me much.I will be very greatful.Yours from Nigeria,can i know where you are presently? Thanks Earlymen message me! 07:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I admire you,keep the Wiki flag flying and get yourself some warmers out there since i had that the U.S especially the Northeast is cold.Have a nice time colleague.Earlymen message me! 07:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Serious Wikipedians

Hi, What happens after that new article Rfc ends? What is the process?

Given the comments we have seen on that Rfc, I thought that those who "take Wikipedia seriously" should create a category of some sort. There are all kinds of groups within Wikipedia, so how about a category "Serious Wikipedians"? I see the definition as follows:

A serious Wikipedian:

• Would like to see a day when all articles on key general encyclopedic topics are fully referenced, error free and of a higher quality than traditional printed encyclopedias. (Key encyclopedic topics are defined as those with articles in two major encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica, etc.)

• Does not contribute to or endorse articles on trivia such as celebrity rehab visits, obscure and marginally notable living artists or musical groups trying to promote their own album that has sold less than 400 copies, etc.

• Would like to see a day when more experts are invited to contribute to Wikipedia and policies which protect their contributions.

• Would like to see "domain encyclopedias" within Wikipedia, on established academic fields of knowledge such as engineering, science, medicine, history, art, religion and literature.

• Would like to see a day when all articles on domain encyclopedic topics are fully referenced, error free and of a higher quality than traditional printed encyclopedias. (Key encyclopedic topics here are defined as those which appear in two established vertical encyclopedias, e.g. two established medical references.)

• Would like to see more controls over article quality standards and references rather than the creation of marginally notable new articles. This viewpoint considers the 10th anniversary of Wikipedia as a turning point where improving the quality of exiting articles takes precedence over the creation of new ones.

• Would encourage the creation of far more sophisticated bots and semi-automated tools for "content protection" against vandalism and thinly veiled commercial promotion. This viewpoints encourages the creation of integrated, institutional guidelines to complement the volunteer designed protection bots.

What do you think? And how does one go about establishing this project group? History2007 (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a lot to think about and probably should be split into several categories, each with its own page. Most of the points I can agree with wholeheartedly. The idea of topical encyclopedias within the larger encyclopedia strikes me as especially inspired. I'm unsure about the last two points, especially the last one: existing bots could certainly be improved, and new ones created and authorized, but I wonder what sort of semi-automated tools would help to protect content.

Are you thinking about doing this as a formal WikiProject? Rivertorch (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, each subtopic can get a page, but there is a unifying theme to it, namely: "We don't just want more text. We want more quality, we want more reliability". So that theme runs through the seven points of the "manifesto". The existing bots are a good start, but they can go a long way. But you are probably right that it is the most complex of the 7 items, and that was why I listed it last. But I do see the future as bot driven with much better tools against vandals.

Is the "WikiProject" the vehicle to do this? And the name is....? Wikiproject ...? The project is in some sense "self referential" in that it applies o Wikipedia , not quality control of manufacturing items, etc. So WikiProject Quality would not apply, but WikiProject WikiQuality may. History2007 (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never actually joined any WikiProject, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. Someone at the WikiProject Council might offer some advice. The only thing that occurs to me about naming is that it doesn't have to be called "WikiProject x" to be a WikiProject; I've seen a few that don't have that nomenclature. Incidentally, I'm suddenly wondering why we're having this conversation on TBotNL's talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind it, actually. I've only joined one WikiProject, WikiProject Burma (or whatever the hell it's called now, with the awful naming issues there), although I've been among those trying to revive the stillbirth that is WikiProject World's Oldest People. I like the idea, and I can see it working in the way that WikiProject Spam works, but someone more experienced in these matters should probably have the final say. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the info that Spam was a project, I read the pages on projects based on the links you guys provided and it was straightforward to start Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedia_reliability now that we have 3 people. Please feel free to add your names there, so we get some initial momentum. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, The Blade of the Northern Lights. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I like most of the points you've stated, especially #2. I think the largest obstacle to wikipedia becoming a serious and trusted information source is the perception among people that do not know the wikipedia community well that we obsess over minutae of family guy episodes but ignore serious historical events and topics related to the hard sciences.

As a side note I think the greatest problem among people that DO know the Wikipedia community is the fact we can devote megabytes of text to arguing over whether to use british or american spelling of gasoline/petrol/benzin/fossil fuel long-chain hydrocarbons for propelling a vehicle or an em dash versus a hyphen and end up with wild inconsistencies across articles. I would like to see that as another point for "serious wikipedians." I think a huge obstacle to being a serious encyclopedia as opposed to a community experiment that has a compilation of pop culture references is that on matters where consensus is not clear chaos reigns because there is no arbiter. A real encyclopedia has an editor that for better or worse edits things according to consistent style guidelines. I think for the sake of stability and sanity and a professional appearance we need to force articles to uniformity in some cases and where consensus is impossible to obtain there has to be a foundation caveat. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Vincelord

I have a question for you on references, recently i made comments on actors Phil Carey and Hume Cronyn that i feel were important and i even listed a book that i used as a reference, yet both comments were removed and i wasn't told why. Is a book a good enoungh reference for me to use or do i have to use something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincelord (talk • contribs) 16:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Better UAA call than you seem to realize

re User:Slashbslashollocks: you do realize that it spells "bollocks", as well, I hope. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that a few minutes after I reported it. Serendipity is nice, when it works in my favor. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

FYI: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Wiki-Watch should go on the front page in a week or two, then reliability will get some attention. I am yet to expand the project items but will do so in a day or two. History2007 (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind welcome. GoldCreek GoldCreek (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Username

Well, I just read that and I couldn't find anything specifically about implied profanity. But I'll change it if an admin asks me too. Kampai! Vassos55 (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)