Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or - for assistance - at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

Argument over Award

there seems to be an argument over an Award renaming proposal i entered Here

The proposal i brought up, is the template:Working Man's Barnstar should not have any gender parameters and be renamed to "Hard Worker" to give the Barnstar a clearer meaning and making it more general without over-personalizing the Barnstar. However, i see these poor reasons to why it should be kept and seem to neglect the purpose of the proposal. That and i find it Bias and almost sexist. It would be great if i had more input on it (oppose or support, i just want a good reasons)>Bread Ninja (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That was your opinion. Others differed from you. There's lots of decisions on Wikipedia I've disagreed with, I see no problem with that. Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum for people to air their views and convince others, all that matters is improving the articles. And personally I do not see that ensuring we have to talk about ploughperson's lunch instead of ploughman's lunch is going to help improve the articles. Dmcq (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

it's the general idea that counts. For something being passed off as legit, should we really add a personal trait such as gender?Bread Ninja (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not follow, what do you mean by being passed off as legit? Legitimate in what sense or who is passing it off as such? As far as I'm aware they are simply given by one person to another and anyone can set up a barnstar. You seem to be trying to remove the facility to say man or woman in it and yet you actively identify yourself as female on Wikipedia. That seems a bit confused to me. Are you saying you want people to know you are a woman but you want them to then ignore the fact and refer to you in a gender neutral fashion? And you want to remove the facility for someone to refer to another person as a man or woman in an award when they have identified as such? I simply cannot go along with such silliness. Dmcq (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's offensive because, the default is "working man", the phrase is commonly used with man and doesn't sound as good with woman or wikipedian, plus not that direct.

I'm saying we shouldn't pass of mediocore awards for legitimately is what i'm saying.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The default is "Wikipedian's" and you can always set up your own award and try and publicise it on that project. I still don't see what you mean by legitimate and I don't see the problem with Wikipedian's or Woman's compared to Man's, in what way are they not 'direct'? How would I know if one award is legitimate and another is not? Dmcq (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I'm not even sure you're trying to. Like I've stated before, The Working Man's Barnstar is based of a phrase mainly due to "man" the gender is m=man, w=woman, n=wikipedian according to the template page. The template is still titled "working man". Kind of like if hypothetically a barnstar was called "Man up" because it's a phrase, but to add neutrality, they adapted that phrase into "woman up" and "wikipedian up" but still doesn't have the same ring to as "Man up"

It's not that it isn't legitimate award, just that it's legitimate but doesn't follow the standards of other awards. It's one of the main general awards. As you can see in WP:BARNSTAR it's write under the original and editor. Yet it doesn't go up to the same standard as the other awards. The idea is to replace the award basically with one more generally accepted. Why is this so difficult?Bread Ninja (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

'I'm not even sure you're trying to' Well that ends this for me. Dmcq (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else with a more neutral view? I'm exhausted of seeing these type of editors.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Bread Ninja, what is your motivation for bringing this concern to the Village pump? Raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages is a bit puzzling and is often considered disruptive. It isn't really beneficial to seek out various forums in hopes of getting the answer you want. A more appropriate choice would be to choose one forum for the consensus discussion and offer a clear, concise statement or proposal regarding your concern. The proposal was appropriately brought up to the Wikiproject members, resulting in discussion to reach consensus. I would recommend that you continue to discuss your concerns in that forum. On another note, for the sake of clarification, the nature of Barnstars is actually rather frivolous. The process lacks guidelines, along with qualifying measurements or standards. There is no real purpose for them, outside of simple encouragement or offering an editor some "warm fuzzies" or a pat on the back. I don't wish to minimize your concerns. That said, while the desire to be politically correct in real life is admirable for some individuals, it is not a universal goal or concern on Wikipedia. Honestly, there's just bigger fish to fry. Best regards, Cind.amuse 10:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Again, it's not just for political correctness....but overall, i think it depends on where it's appropriate and where it's not. Basically if it's challenged for something that could be a major problem, then the editors should accept that instead of waiting until another situation rises. The process of making them does lack guideline, but the general idea of giving awards is to reflect on their contributions. Though the awards are also meant to encourage editors aswell. I brought it up here in the hopes of seeing a more general, less bias opinion.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• You want a "neutral" response? Here it is: unless someone finds the name of this barnstar offensive, & explains persuasively why it must be changed, it's going to remain "The Working Man's Barnstar". And even then, its name may remain the same. (Look at the old AD/BC vs. CE/BCE debate, which generated lots of smoke but no light.) And as Bill Price pointed out in the original discussion, your insistence on a "neutral view" is offensive because the wording discounts the opinions of anyone who disagrees with you on this matter. I suggest you let this matter go & move on. I understand that there are hundreds of thousands of stubs waiting for someone to turn them into complete articles: find a few that interest you, & work on them. -- llywrch (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And by that you mean an opinion that agrees with your own? You say that you want any opinion, but anytime someone disagrees with you (here or at the other discussion), you just discount their opinions by asserting that they're biased or being "unreasonable". Mr.Z-man 16:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly, not that i'm saying the comments on here are bias. but i'm referring the ones in the discussion at WP:AWARD. And i'm asking an opinion based on both sides, not just one. And i do find the barnstar offensive. I've said so time again. What i'm asking is something less bias is all. Which you cannot deny, the reasons given there aren't fully thought up to why it should be kept.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So when you said "Anyone else with a more neutral view? I'm exhausted of seeing these type of editors." when Dmcq disagreed, what or who were you referring to? I'm sorry, but if you want to actually get consensus, you have to actually accept that people might have a different opinion than yours, not assert that your own opinion is inarguable fact and forum shop until you get people who agree. Mr.Z-man 19:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

it's not the opinion, but the reason to push that opinion forward. I'm tired of seeing people use half-baked reasons. Let's not act like Dmcq was a saint in this discussion either. I asked for readers with a more neutral "view". I do find it heavily unreasonable if one editor declines because in his mind alone, he thinks that "Hard Worker" means "Not very bright" despite knowing the fact that he knows not everyone will see it that way ,nor does the implication actually exist. Or maybe it should be kept because "Working man" is a "time-honored phrase" neglecting Working Woman and Working Wikipedian (the adapted names that don't give off the same catch as the original phrase).Bread Ninja (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is really what we have to argue about? Why don't we try to spend the time arguing over this on improving articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.29.68 (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Bread Ninja, at this point it does not look like there is any consensus to change the award. Here are some things you can do so that you don't get offended by it. 1. You can create your own gender neutral award and try to get it used instead of this one. 2. If someone gives you one of these awards you can refuse it and let the presenter know you don't like it. 3. ignore the barnstars and work on articles. GB fan (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

i'm already doing number 1. number 2 is highly unlikely now. they know it offends me. and i have been working on articles. still offends me an award meant more for males exist out there.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't be bothered with such minute details. For goodness sake, its just a name of an award!!! If you want, just set up a redirect called the Template:The Working Barnstar. These "political correctness" is just a dumb waste of time!

Axe to grind? Try the hardware store, not Wikipedia.

--

Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC) It's the principle....plus it is offensive. When you use political correctness, you say it's done fort he sake of that. Which is not.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Who the **** cares! Its just a fricking name! Get on with this. Ok suppose you're right what do you want done? Rename? Just for the sake of closing this arguement, let's rename it! If not it's gonna go on forever, or at least till the world ends in 2012. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not just a simple "rename" it's to remove "gender" overall. it's just not appropriate in wikipedia. And seriously? Why can't i just find one person on here who actually contribute....Why post on here? You say this is a waste of time, so why do you even make a mess to this discussion?Bread Ninja (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Its because a. its useless, b. Unless we refer to everone as "they", s/he, or the genderless Wikipedian, it doesn't make any sense. For example, the dog is his or hers? S/he is twenty one years old. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the entire discussion? Do you know what we are talking about? It's an award given in 1st-person. The gender will be even useless to put in, but still offensive. How come i'm seen as the uncivil jerk, when people are doing just the same (potentially worst)Bread Ninja (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the only "gender" is used in the naming of the award. The rest of the message is up to you! So what should we call the award? The Working Genderless being award? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, i ask, if you even looked at the discussion...i proposed "The Hard Worker's Barnstar". The title does significant enough.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

How's that? I've changed the style of the neutral gender option and added a new "f" (female) switch. WIth everybody's agreement, perhaps we can move the page? But this may break links used by other Wikipedia pages --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I apologize if you have already answered this somewhere else, what do you want to happen? Simply a rename of the current template to "The Hard Worker's Barnstar" or do you want more, such as a fundamental change to the template to remove all possibility of using gender in the award? GB fan (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As an effort to pacify this discussion, I have added two more options and moving the "Working Wikipedian's" to the "wiki" option and making the "Hard Worker's" option the default (n). This is done so that all sides are happy. All options are still there (for those who want those) but for Bread Ninja's sake, the "default" option is changed --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It's not me who want the changing. It's User:Bread Ninja --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)  Done Moved to requested name... Hopefully no further rebuttals/reprisals by others. Redirect of old name in effect --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, i wanted to redirect the entire template into a simpler one. For those who do want it, will have to put it in Manually. I highly doubt this will hurt people. It's still leaning towards man, because the given phrase was originally "working man" and adapted to "working woman". Like i said before with the example of "Man up".Bread Ninja (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is done for legacy purpose to preserve all other older perimeters --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean Legacy Purposes? We could just add a note saying that it originally had aparameters for a different name.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

See legacy system. This is done so that those still wanting to use the old perimeters could still do so. Actually this is done to pacify both sides of the arguements, those who want the "gender" and those who doesn't. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not really a guideline nor a policy nor an essay. I don't know if we should base it on that. But lets say for example, that i would agree with that idea, the title for both male and female have to be equivalent (meaning it would have to make up it's own phrase that didn't originate from a specific gender). The problem i have with the gender the most is that it originated from a phrase used for "man", the phrase adapted to "woman" and "Wikipedia" (which doesn't have the same catch as the male version). Which is why i proposed something more "universal" instead of "optional". That and the barnstar itself really complicates things. More than it should. Compared to the rest, the very Barnstar itself contradicts the others. Unless there were 2 or 3 more that had gender (which i don't see in WP:BARNSTAR)Bread Ninja (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere: the same point has been repeatedly made by several different people, & for some reason Bread Ninja either doesn't understand the point, or doesn't want to understand it. It's clear that the name of this barnstar will not be changed in the near future, & further posts to this thread by anyone will not change that. I propose that we end this discussion, & everyone move on to something else. -- llywrch (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The name of the template WAS changed by me and BreadNinja's suggestions were added as the default "option" for neutral genders. But apparently BreadNinja wanted to do away with the gender issue altogether (I kept the old options for legacy purposes and to appease both sides). --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

not really....i just don't agree Llywrch. And we shouldn't make up things such as "Legacy purposes" unless there actually is an essay about it, which i would consider. And idk but "wanting to do away with the gender issue altogether" sounds pretty good. there's no down side but to remove personal preferences to those who want to give the award for some odd reason.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just imagine that on Windows that you was used to doing things a particular way. But suppose Microsoft changed the entire interface completly? How would you feel? You would feel lost and fusturated. That's why, for legacy purposes, certain commands still remains. For example, run cmd still brings up command prompt (instead of something completely different). That's what "for legacy purpose" means. It means so that those that is used to the gender options can still access it. If you want, go ahead and change the template to the way you want if only this issue was resolved! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 00:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The barnstar was renamed even though there is no consensus on this. This should not have been done. See Wikipedia_talk:Barnstars#the_working_man.27s_barnstar. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And now the original name doesn't seem to work - it outputs the redirect statement - and who wants to be a drudge with hard working? Can there be a bit of discussion please before renaming to something like hard working? Dmcq (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I renamed the template in an effort to close this age old arguement. If not, we would be going in circles around here. Trying to break that circle. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I've a thing against editors who are extremely hard working but impede accomplisment. I'd prefer it for many accomplishments rather than hard working. The other actual texts output seems okay though to me - the working mans/womans/wikipedians barnstar. Dmcq (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

@Tyw7: Legacy purposes isn't an issue in here. If things change, then things change. Legacy purposes within computer systems don't even compare to this situation. It's not a policy, a guideline, nor an esssay, so we can't use that reasoning only. If the system offends someone(which i find it very offensive) then it should be replaced with a gender neutral version.

@Dmcq:You're missing the point. there are other barnstars, and usually a barnstar is added for certain contributions that the one giving the award appreciates. It's subjective to the giver, not the given.But whatever, if "Worker's Barnstar" is better suited then fine.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you think I was making or missing. By the way I see your two statements here as a bit contradictory. I wouldn't be keen on just being called hard working but you say it is just up to the giver irrespective of the person receiving it and on the other hand you disagree with people giving or receiving one that mentions their sex even when the receiver obviously wants to be identified that way. You never did explain why you put such a marker on your user page if you wish people to not use it. Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've said several time the "working wikipedian" and "working woman" doesn't have the same catch as "working man" because the phrase originated off "working man" but adapted to woman and wikipedian just to allow female and neutral to obtain that award (so it's leaning towards males). There's no absolute proof that the receiver wants to be given a gender through a reward (especially since this is the one and only award that gives gender). regardless, that's not a contradiction if you think about per the motives of disliking it. Who would get mad for complimenting them for working hard? highly doubt anyone would get angry, not the best compliment in the word, but its a compliment nonetheless. Who would find the barnstar template itself sexist by using a phrase originally meant for males but adapted for females and neutral? idk the number exactly, but the fact i bring it up says something.

I still think you're missing the point though. this is the only barnstar that gives gender, so saying ppl want to an award adressed to their gender aswell is highly unlikely.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have avoided this conversation, in the (apparently vain) expectation that changing the default to a gender-neutral name would solve the problem and we could all get back to doing something useful.

I am one of the relatively few women on Wikipedia, and I object to the proposed gender erasure.

I further believe that "hard worker" does not have the same meaning as "working man". "Working man" connotes an effective, competent, skillful person: an artisan or master craftsman produces "workmanlike" results. Saying that someone is a hard worker is a positive compliment, but a compliment for their character qualities rather than for their skills. One can be a hard worker and be completely unskilled.

"Working man" also has class connotations: A working man is a blue-collar worker, not a fancy lawyer or rocket scientist. I could imagine folks working within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour using this barnstar for more than its "official" use.

IMO the solution is to create a completely separate "hard worker" barnstar for those that choose to use it, and to leave the old one available to those that choose to use it. Surely we could extend the principle of NOTCENSORED, usually trotted out by young, single, white males in defense of pictures of naked women, so far as to say that we are not going to prevent people from acknowledging editors' genders in barnstars. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You're still missing the point though. the idea is to find a phrase that works with both male, female, and unknown regardless if it is equal to the original. Why bother making one equal to "working man" if the phrase is merely adapted to female and neutral? WP:NOTCENSORED is for articles. The main problem is, that the template was named man, the phrase was taken from man. woman is just an adapted form. Ackowledging gender means nothing though...again missing the point.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have avoided raising the obvious concern here, waiting for somebody else to bring it up, but since they haven't, I will: Why does the star have five points? Who decided on this prime number-centric choice, this pandering to phalages, this warlike reference to the Pentagon? The four-pointed star is, of course, vastly preferable for its numerical neutrality, its alignment to the four main compass points, its correspondence to the dimensions of our space-time continuum. I am outraged that nobody has changed it! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL but well said! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Again missing the point, and might i add that sounded too sarcastic.....sigh...i hate it when things get like this.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That WAS sarcastic... --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• You know, I generally try to maintain my composure on Wikipedia, but honestly, in my opinion, all of this has been highly disruptive. Quite frankly, I think it's a disgrace. On one hand, we have an individual forum shopping, after the community in the Wikiproject rejected the first proposal. Then, when this forum is found, the community is essentially brow beaten with the proposal at every crossroad, disregarding the rejection of the community in the second forum. Then another editor comes along, gets tired of the constant haranguing, and chooses to ignore the community, by arbitrarily changing the barnstar... wholly disregarding the community consensus. And even THAT wasn't enough to appease! Where's the sanctions against this action? All this exercise revealed is that if you yell the loudest and throw the biggest stink, you can get anything you want. On that note, I would like to make a proposal to change the Working Wikipedian's Barnstar to the Working Wikipedian's Barnsquare. Can I get a witness? What do I have to do... er, wait. I know how to make it happen! I just need to follow the fine example above, and the Wikipedia world will be mine! ::evil grin:: Cind.amuse 19:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

At first, I tried to appease BreadNinja by inserting the "hard working" option into the article but even that did not make him happy! So I went the extra mile in changing the name of the article but that wasn't enough! Also, I kept all the old names so that both could be used. On a second note, how about copying the template to BOTH name? That may stop this discussion once and for all! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Asking with sincerity, can you please explain why you believed that it was your option to acquiesce to the demands and change the barnstar in any capacity? It puzzles me that you would disregard the consensus of the community and make the changes. I have no interest in suggesting changes for you to make to appease further. That is, unless you want to acknowledge the hasty nature of your decision; revert your changes to the initial Working Man's Barnstar introduced by Blankfaze on July 6, 2004; then make an official proposal, open to the community at large through an RfC; then possibly create or revise barnstars with the blessing of appropriate community consensus. Anything short of that? I'm really not interested. When all is said and done, I offer my best regards, Cind.amuse 20:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well anyone is entitled to set up a barnstar and basing it on a previous is perfectly okay so I don't see any problem with having the new one. Removing the old one from WP:BARN and substituting the new one is more problematic - they're arranged in date order for one thing. Dmcq (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, anyone can create a barnstar and base it on a previous one. However, it is not okay to replace one with another, like was done with The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar. Heck, when you look, you'll also see that The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar indicates that it was introduced by Blankfaze on July 6, 2004. I really don't think that's appropriate. The Working Man's Barnstar should have been left there, in accordance with community consensus. I have no problem with someone creating an additional template, then adding it to the WP:BARNSTARS page and offering accurate attribution, but what was done was off the mark. Cind.amuse 20:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say this the first time around, because I didn't want to keep this thread going ... but since it has continued regardless of my actions, now I will. Anyone else here suspect that Bread Ninja is simply trolling us? If you do, then act accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• No, I don't believe this for a minute. User:Bread Ninja has made thousands of valuable edits to the project. My view is that she has an infectious zeal and fire for what she believes. Generally, zeal of this level is admirable. I don't fault her for that. She simply lacks a comprehensive understanding of the community protocols upon which Wikipedia functions, and chooses to plunge on ahead, with seemingly disregard for the beliefs of others. Cind.amuse 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And C. Northcote Parkinson is proven right yet again... Mr.Z-man 22:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I get frustrated with the reasoning against it in the original one was lacking. I brought it here, wasn't exactly expecting a discussion here. But still the point i have been trying to make has been ignored so i'm too tired. I've said all i could say>Bread Ninja (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to a Survey for a Study with $50 lottery prize (updated)

Hi Wikipedia colleagues,

The purpose of the research is to understand what motivation factors influence your contribution to Wikipedia. For the reason, we will be asking Wikipedia users, both registered and unregistered to complete this online survey about their contribution to Wikipedia, their perception on motivation factors, and their demographic background. The entire survey consists of four sections and takes approximately 10 minutes to complete.

You will receive an entry in a lottery for a $50 donation prize to the Wikimedia Foundation or a $50 Amazon.com gift card for participating in the study, when the number of valid respondents reaches 200. The odds of winning are approximately 1/50. The lottery winner will be drawn using a random number generator at the end of data collection. We will donate $50 for each lottery winner in his/her user name after notifying you are a winner of the lottery or send you a $50 Amazon.com gift card via your email address.

After collecting and analyzing the data collected, we will provide Wikipedia with a brief report that contains a descriptive summary of the data and the results of testing the hypotheses in our research model. Only aggregated data will be provided; no individual responses will be disclosed at any time. We will not reveal your identity or the content of your response to the public or any other individual. As a result, there are no foreseeable risks associated with this project.

Your opinions are very important to us. Your participation is completely voluntary, and you may withdraw from this project at any time. We ask for your Wikipedia user name (Not Mandatory) only so that we can match your answer with your editing history on Wikipedia and choose the lottery winners. After the data collected from questionnaire responses are matched with your actual user name, your user name will be replaced with a numerical ID. Your responses will not be identifiable in any way when the data analysis begins.

If you are willing to participate, please click on HERE to begin the online questionnaire.

Your assistance in improving our understanding of why people contribute to Wikipedia is most appreciated.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact us on my Wikipedia talk page or at the email address or phone number on the online survey form. If you would like to know the information about me, please visit the online survey page. As you know, I cannot post our real names and email addresses here because of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However, you can see our information on the first page of the survey.

Yours truly, cooldenny (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You refer to "we" and "us" several times, but don't say to whom those pronouns refer. It is very difficult to evaluate your claim that "there are no foreseeable risks associated with this project" without that information. I know of no Wikipedia policy or guideline that precludes your posting that information, for example I edit under my real name and it has never been suggested that I shouldn't do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I am not sure that I have wrong information on posting personal information on Wikipedia page. Anyway, you can see the information on on the first page of the survey. cooldenny (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How about you offer an entry in a lottery for a $50 credit good at the online bookseller of the winner's choice instead? That would motivate me to participate in a survey on the reasons why I contribute content. -- llywrch (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

First, I had though about what you suggested. However, I do not know how to do. if you know, please let me know the way. cooldenny (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you want IP editors to participate or not? You say above that you do, but when I got to the end of page 3, on some questions requesting quite specific details about the participant's editing history, I found the instruction, If you were an unregistered user, please skip these questions. and an error message, Looks like you have a question or two that still needs to be filled out. when I took that instruction at face value. 76.244.155.165 (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for you inconvenience. I change the direction for IP users. Thanks. cooldenny (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Archive name patterns wanted, dead or alive

Hi! If anyone knows archive names, either those of community pages or private talk archives that are composed using

• hexadecimal numbers
• binary numbers
• Roman numbers
• any exotic but regular pattern

please let me know, too. I am working on a bot that will create table of contents from archives (see hu:user:Bináris/TOCbot), and I need some examples for testing. Thanks a lot, Bináris (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered the archives listed at {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}? It's not the pattern that we usually use here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my bot is able to handle all of those patterns, and you will soon be able to browse the contents of them. :-) Bináris (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Metrication opposition seems to have an I, II and III; a Google search for site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:"archive_ii" throws up a couple of others. Similarly, Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review uses A, B, C, etc. Shimgray | talk | 22:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much! Bináris (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Kronum

Apparently, the article about Kronum has been created only because, when proposed to deletion on the french Wikipedia, someone noticed that this new sport was so few notorious that it didn't even have its own page on the english Wikipedia. At its creation, the english article was tagged "possible autobiography or conflict of interest" but the tag was quickly removed, the same day, by its creator himself [1], what it's not permitted. So I would like to get opinions on the admissibility of this article. I'm not familiar at all with the structure of the Village Pump, it's the first time that I come here, so I hope I've asked my question in the correct place. Thank you in advance for your opinions. -- Basilus (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The tag that was removed was an "unreviewed" tag. These are not really supposed to be removed by the article creator, but it is not a big issue. The "possible autobiography or conflict of interest" is an wp:Edit filter tag, which are logged separately. A quick look at the sources in the article shows this sport has received enough coverage to meet our general notability guideline, so wikipedia should have an article about Kronum. The motives behind the creation of the page play no role on whether it should stay. Yoenit (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your detailled answer. -- Basilus (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Secret archives?

Hi folks!

While preparing hu:user:Bináris/TOCbot (see above) and gathering archive name patterns, I found three secret archives in your wiki:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 2004-11-15
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 2004-11-20
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 2004-12-11

None of them is linked from anywhere in the Wikipedia! Neither the header of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), nor the "older discussions" page, nor anywhere. I don't know if there are such hidden archives of other pages, I just listed the subpages of policy with my bot. You may think to link them somewhere and search for others. They are also valuable because TOCbot won't list archives made by difflinks such as Wikipedia:Village pump archive#October 2004 - October 2007. Sincerely,  Bináris (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

One more: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive2 (not to be confused with Archive 2) is not linked from the header either. You have a good many skeletons in the cupboard. :-)  Bináris (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The first three are copies of the village pump technical archives from those same dates. The originals can be found at the bottom of wp:Village pump archive#October 2004 - October 2007. Dunno why they were created, they should probably be nominated for deletion. Not sure about the other archive page though. Yoenit (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A related point is that the complicated and varied archiving systems sometimes result in some material being omitted altogether. Peter jackson (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Article Proposal

I think there should be an article about Mississippi River floods. The Mississippi River article is quite weak on the subject. Unfortunately, when I tried to find the place to make this suggestion, I couldn't. It would be nice if Wikipedia would automatically ask if someone wants to suggest an article when one cannot find an article on a given topic, as it used to. 05:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.173 (talk)

You could try adding it to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences#Other: environment and geology or Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences#Meteorology & weather.—RJH (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that we don't have that article already.BigJim707 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia and Arbcom can utterly ruin your life.

Not helping anyone here. Get it gone. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

Do a Google Search for my username. It's my real name. First page that comes up, if you're in the UK, anyway - which I am, is a WikiSynergy page, http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/Adam_Cuerden_%28Shoemaker%27s_Holiday%29 It's an attack site. And what does it use to attack me? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman - an ArbCom case which the ArbcCom themselves, years later, admitted was false, should never have been taken, and involved Charles Matthews, then an arbitrator, abusing his powers to attack someone who accidentally disrespected him. The case was about a block that had happened three months earlier which Charles Matthews asked me to undo, giving no reason, while I was about to head into exams. I offered to hand off to ANI. However, Charles Matthews was upset that I didn't just undo a block that I did not remember because it was several months previous, and didn't have toime to investigate as I was in the run in to exams. This wasn't good enough for him, so he decided to vindictively go for my head - and this after the user in question had been unblocked. The blocked user was undeniably a single-purpose account, and an ANI thread had reviewed an accepted the block and presumption of sockpuppetry, and an independent admin had reviewed it, and declined to unblock before Charles came around. Calling it a "test case", he called, for my head, and before I had evven given my evidence, UninvitedCompany had, at the request ofhis fellow-arbitratr, written a proposed decision calling for me to be desysoped, and many pother things. Because, you know, rushing to judgement before the defendant has had a chance to defend himself clearly shows this isn't a kangaroo court. Charles MAtthews went mad, attacking many respected admins. Quotes from him: "At best User:Moreschi regards policy as an inconvenience for admins. And User:Jehochman here is a meddling hypocrite, at best. On a later occasion User:Adam Cuerden validated a controversial block of User:Jehochman's." "two admins and a dog" (Attack on Jehochman) "I cannot see how it is acceptable to summarise a user in the block log, which is an indelible record, as a "vandalism-only account", when it is no such thing." Oh, really, Charles Matthews? And yet, four years later, noone can see that block log, but your attack page is the first ranking in Google. Further, knowing that this was a possibility, I was forced to fight this case through my exams, since I'm the only person of my name in the world. This resulted in me having to drop out of university. Oh, and late in the case, they admitted that no other dispute resolution had occured. So they opened an RfC. The RfC came out strongly against a desysop. UninvitedCompany stated that the community were simply "circl[ing] wagons" and thus could be ignored. Meanwhile, Arbcom circled wagons around Charles Matthews. Uninvited: "Let's try and leave Charles Matthews out of this" Paul August: "The issue at hand is what to do about Adam, not what to do about Charles... I can't imagine any reasonable editor thinking that Charles needs anything done about him." Charles Matthews never received any negative consequences from this case, except for losing his next election in a landslide of anger at him. As mentioned before, the next arbcom reviewed, and ddeclared the case was a farce. The Arbcom has now accepted that the case was a mistake from start to finish. But they refuse to make any meaningful amends. The top-ranked page in my name is an attack page based on their ethical failures. They could issue a statement, attempt to edit the attack wiki, discuss the problem with others, or many other options. They will do none of those. Wikipedia has ruined my life. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC) The real lesson here would be WP:REALNAME (i.e., don't use your real name). That, and sometimes you have to put Real Life even over the most dramatic wikidrama. PS As for the "attack page" - I doubt Arbcom can do anything, and if you can't realistically threaten WikiSynergy with a libel action (probably not), then there's probably nothing you can do beyond putting your own version of events out there.Rd232 talk 00:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC) It has crept up the rankings because we have deleted everything else. Adam, you were vanished, and you came back, and then even resumed editing under your own name. By coming back, you've lost any right to claim Wikipedia has hurt you as you have made a conscious decision to resume editing under your real name. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Look at what's actually linked, Vandenberg. It's not on Wikipedia, it's an attack site which Arbcom has known about for ages. And that's an incredibly self-serving statement, I might add. "We've hur you, but because you showed up again, we can ignore the permanent harm caused". Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC) "it's an attack site which Arbcom has known about for ages" - so? Arbcom has no control over it, and any attempt to even influence it will surely be rejected. Rd232 talk 00:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC) In other words, Arbcom has no responsibility to correct injustices caused. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC) What resolution do you seek? —David Levy 00:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC) "In other words, Arbcom has no responsibility to correct injustices caused" - no, I said quite precisely that it had no power to address your specific concern [or if it wasn't clear, I meant rejected by WikiSynergy]. If you can show that it has any such power, there is something to talk about. Rd232 talk 00:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Were the risks of using your real name in this context not obvious to you? If "David Levy" weren't such a common name, I probably wouldn't. —David Levy 00:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I was fairly young, rather naive because of my upbringing, and foolishly trusted Wikipedia and the safeguards put in place such as Arbcom to be a safe place. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC) You describe your behavior as "foolish." I decline to express disagreement. —David Levy 01:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC) You could claim to be young when you vanished after the ArbCom case, however you unvanished in May 2009 in full knowledge of the fact that Arbcom isnt able to control what is said off Wikipedia. When you unvanished, the wikisynergy page looked like this. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Quick reality check. This edit of yours - "while I was suffering from severe depression, illness, and on the verge of nervous breakdown from the monetary situation at the time - I was literally faced with being homeless" - suggests there was plenty of other bad stuff going on in your life. Arbcom is not to blame for your exit from university and the ruination of your life. At best it is the author of a wikidrama which should be seen as such. Besides, with the best will in the world, who searches for you (or might at the time have been presumed to have been searching for you) on the internet? What is the connection between a spat on wikipedia findable in google, and the ruination of your life? Have you no sense of perspective? And is not this thread you rekindling the wikidrama. WTF? How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously. As to the so-called attack site, it seems remarkably neutral in tone, and corroborates the claims you make here, that arbcom nullified its own decision. Unwelcome as it may be to have a page about one's self on the internet, exactly how is that website attacking you? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC) You know what? Fuck you all. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC) What an interesting response from someone concerned about online content injuring his reputation. —David Levy 01:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I point out that Wikipedia has ruined my life. I got made fun of in exchange. I get told that Wikipedia thinks that it's perfectly fine that everything happened. I didn't even get a modicum of sympathy. So, yeah, fuck you. I give and give to Wikipedia. I get begged to come back, but if I do, the abuse just starts up again, and I feel dirty for having sunk my self esteem yet again because I thought that the goals of the site were worth it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC) The problem is, your claim is self evidently bogus. That makes it difficult to proceed. We can, and I do, sympathise with your predicament. But your analysis I find deeply flawed and your actions self-injuring. The irony - if there is one, and if I understand correctly - is that the premise of the so-called attack site, is that you're a bad man for demanding that fringe science claims be supported by reliable sources, something which fringe science is not all that happy about. In any rational perspective, that puts you on the side of the angels (if you'll forgive the metaphor) and ought to be seen as a badge of honour. It's a shame you don't see it that way. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC) See also Locus of control. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Who's made fun of you? Who's opined that your misfortune is "perfectly fine"? You appear offended by any response other than unconditional agreement that Wikipedia is horrible and single-handedly ruined your life through no fault of your own or any outside entities. —David Levy 01:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Seems like displaced anger, when really, as Tagishsimon points out, the "attack page" (it's not that bad) should be a badge of honour. Rd232 talk 01:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC) My observations of Wikipedia is that it can be stressful, abusive, and grind people up. There is a sort of excuse I call the "one straw argument". Very often, when someone's life goes badly wrong, there is not one sole, single, isolated cause. There are typically multiple aggravating factors. But there's something wrong where for each factor, the cry goes up "I'm just one straw! It was the fault of all those other straws! - and since they obviously caused problems, I can't have caused a problem, so it's not my problem!" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I agree that Wikipedia can be all those things and more. I do like your "one straw argument". In this case, "Wikipedia" (ArbCom) tried to accept it's role and limit the ongoing damage (granting Adam C a "vanishing" and then revising the old ArbCom decision(turning it into more of a contorted mess than it already was)). No doubt we could have done more to assist, but I get tired of being personally blamed for a decision made by someone else years ago (and at a different stage of Wikipedia/arbitration) and required to go to extraordinary lengths to fix the problem, esp. given that Adam C has resumed using his own name again on Commons and Wikipedia. Grown ups around here need to accept the consequences of their actions. Wikimedia needs to be more clear that it wont protect its users. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Clarification requested - Have you been personally blamed, in the sense of called out by name? Or do you mean that in a looser, more metaphorical sense of the phrase? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Reality check, part 2. The initial case, whether Charles was right or wrong, was about misuse of admin tools, and that misuse was well evidenced. If Charles had never existed or had avoided his part, your misuse of admin tools to block content dispute opponents on false grounds and multiple occasions over a period of several months in 2007 was still more than enough for a desysopping case. Your story and claims related to your personal background led to a compassionate offer to consider extenuating circumstances. You were offered your adminship back if you coulkd show stability for a few months. Your story also changed or turned out to include significant contradictory details which didn't impress me very much either (details excluded here because I have no doubt you were genuinely in deep distress and these were partly covered in AC emails as well as in personal correspondence to individual arbs and on-wiki). Nonetheless you were correctly allowed and helped to vanish and multiple apologies for the procedural matters were made to you by various arbs both informally and formally. In 2009 (wrongly as I still believe) the case was fully vacated due to procedural concerns even though in fact its core findings of admin misconduct were not in doubt. You used this, and still use it, as a platform to claim loudly that everything was incorrect - it was not. You then continued to make a loud noise and also resumed editing under your own name. This is where the sad tale leads. With compassion, you have created most of your own mess here. I wish you had not, but that is what the evidence says. In May 2009, 2 years later and knowing without doubt from the past the possible effect of real name editing, you asked to have your pseudonym account renamed so that you could edit under your real name again, knowing more than most the effect real name editing can have. I stopped keeping an eye on the case around 2009. Now 3.5 years on, here you are ranting again about Charles Matthews and UC, and events from 2007 and making fallacious claims about how others view you. In sum, you had exceptionally helpful handling, vacating of a case in which you clearly (procedure aside) had done wrong to other users, help vanishing, even an offer of reinstatement as an admin if you could show yourself to be back to stability for a reasonable period of some months. You knew precisely the potential for problems from real-name editing by 2009, having previously vanished. You largely placed the fire under your own cauldron and jumped in. That is why others are linking to terms like locus of control and suggesting displaced anger. You have my sympathy for the outcome, but I cannot let you fully blame others for it in the manner you have done. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I don't think this is about whether the title should be "Why Wikipedia and Arbcom can be major stressors and when in combination with other stressors, utterly ruin your life". Tip - one gets the moral right to lecture only after one has done something to address the stressor. Otherwise, it's extremely unhelpful hectoring. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Indeed I did something. Several somethings, as the user knows. I reviewed the case de novo, removed grounds that were poorly founded (one proposed issue dated back 8 months and was "out of time"), clarified the evidence on the rest, repolaced a keyt finding he objected to with one more accurate, negotiated recognition of the personal issues and that he could have a relatively easy route back to adminship and the past overlooked, and refrained from jumping on any bandwagon. So by your criterion I have the right to make a comment. But even if I had not done so, there are two other "rights" in the frame. They are the right of others to not have their deeds unfairly described (and the ethics of staying silent when I have good cause to believe claims against others are poorly founded), and the right of the user himself to have straight honest talk and responses from those who knew about the case and to understand where others agree or disagree with his points. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately but perhaps not completely unexpectedly, this comment has caused quite a lot of commotion, which has played out primarily in over two dozen emails between myself, Adam, and John Vandenburg. It's a mess. In the interests of ending this mess once and for all, I am collapsing this comment. This is not a moral or legal redaction, but rather a retraction for the purposes of reframing. I encourage interested parties to read this, but to read this in the context of the statement that I am about to post below. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. (edit conflict) I agree that Wikipedia can grind people up, but in this case, that's not what's important. I suppose that I have to applaud ArbCom for not responding to this by listing the laundry list of very bad things Adam has done over his three account history. The first Adam Cuerden is a "Vanished" account, which despite him breaking all the rules of Vanished, I won't give the number of, you can figure that out yourselves. As a vanished user, he has no right to come back as Shoemaker's Holiday, and no right to come back as Adam Cuerden again (mind you, the first and third accounts have the same name, but the edit history is not shared.) By any reasonable standard, Adam Cuerden is not a person to be trusted. I should know, he burned me. He came back a few months ago and started doing wonderful things for Featured Sounds, and I knew he had a history there as Shoemaker's Holiday, (I did not know about the first account), so I ended up trusting him to help steer FS. He used that trust to turn me against Tony1, someone whom I worked well with as a 2010 ArbCom election coordinator, and someone I worked well with at the signpost on a one shot basis. Most of the details of the Tony1/Adam/I affair are sealed under the terms of a mediation agreement agreement, but I'll let you use your imagination as to how Adam shaped the Tony1/Adam/I affair when I tell you that some weeks after the mediation agreement was signed, Adam approached me in the IRC and asked me to help him find a reason to topic ban KleinZach from Featured Sounds. By this time I was realizing a pattern with Adam, he tried to turn me against Tony1, Durova, and then KleinZach. He said Durova used his own work to land a job and then abandoned Wikipedia. He blamed Tony1 and KleinZach for driving everyone out of Featured Sounds back in 2008 and causing it to collapse. Adam has a savior complex, he wants to be praised for saving Featured Sounds. Couple that with that he handles any disagreement as an attempt at sabotage, and what you have is a manipulative, demanding, possessive, angry person. I left Featured Sounds because he put me in an uncomfortable ethical position. Had I stayed, he would have continued to try and get me to spy/conspire for him. I realized, not quickly enough, that I would have been very unlikely to have locked horns with Tony, at least not at the magnitude which I had, if not for Adam's machinations. I bailed from a corner of the project that I very much enjoyed because Adam made me uncomfortable on a consistent basis. Why am I saying this now? This isn't dancing on graves. Adam isn't gone. He's "retired" from Wikipedia at least five times, as the Adam Cuerden that vanished, as Shoemaker's Holiday, several months ago as this Adam Cuerden (he got blocked after getting into a brawl with me and said he was done forever), several weeks ago (he said he was leaving for months and came back in days, and this retirement now. That's only the ones I know about. He isn't gone, he will be back, maybe under this name, maybe another one. I will never trust Adam again, but that dosen't mean that he won't be looking for new people to manipulate. ArbCom dropped the ball, Adam violated the terms of his vanishing, he's used multiple accounts abusively, and he's still around. It's time we clean up this mess and ban Adam Cuerden once and for all, we should enforce this latest sham retirement for him. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I have read what you have written. I would like to stay focused on what has been requested vis-a-vis what can be done. Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) This seems like really unpleasant scab-picking and gnawing the bones of old wounds, from both sides. Without any comment on who's right and who's wrong (and honestly, I really don't give a flying fuck; I remember this mess when it first started and it was, to put it mildly, a clusterfuck of epic proportions), can we just archive this and move on? Whether or not there were problems in how it was handled, Adam is doing himself no favours here, and this is just going to devolve into s/he said-s/he said drama. In the interests of both reducing drama and showing compassion for Adam (and his Google results--blah blah, noindex, yeah sure that always works), anyone object to closing this? → ROUX ₪ 03:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse and courtesy blank thread Nothing served, bad judgment to have opened an epic "why I am pissed" that can only end up biting the author himself. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Agreed. This user seemingly needs protecting from himself. The only question is whether (per Sven Manguard's comments) others also need protecting from him. Rd232 talk 03:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC) To the comment on others needing protection from Adam, I would say so, but I have a stake in the matter. As to the issue of blanking, I suppose there's really nothing for me one way or the other. He's going to be back, and when he comes back, he might want to respond. For all he is, Adam is clever, what he does in public is rarely blockable, what he does in private is rarely verifiable. Unless ArbCom blocks him for breaking the vanished policy or breaking any other promises he made with them, I'm neutral on the blanking issue. If ArbCom does indefinitely block or ban Adam, then yes, I'd say blank this, as he would no longer be around to defend himself. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Adam, have you tried to contact the folks at Wikisynergy? Or are you asking our volunteers to do something that you won't do yourself? I don't know anything about the other site, but if it's like us, then we sit up and take notice when the affected person contacts us himself (e.g., through OTRS), not when some third-party contacts us with some story about how the other guy is upset with them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Second statement by Sven Manguard In the last few days several dozen emails have been sent between Adam, John Vandenberg, and I. While I fully admit that I have little interest in dispute resolution with Adam, as I do not believe that it will bear any fruit, I am nonetheless posting this second statement in an effort to end this mess. This morning I awoke to an email from John Vandenberg where he gave me specific information about ArbCom's interaction with Adam that I was not aware of before, and while it directly contradicts another statement made in an email by Adam Cuerden, I have cause to believe that this most recent statement is probably the more accurate one. I cannot, however, verify either one as being completely accurate or inaccurate. John also mentioned that he has received evidence against at least one of the clams I made above. In light of the new information John has provided me, and because I really have better things to do with my time than fight with Adam over email, I am posting a second statement to clarify my positions and minimize the points of dispute. I do not expect Adam to fully accept these points, and indeed, I fully expect that this dispute will last a while longer, however I would hope that this makes going forward easier. 1. I have not seen any of the evidence that John makes reference to, so I cannot comment on that directly. What I can say, however, is that Adam keeps logs of his conversations, and as this dispute played out over emails between Adam, John, and I, Adam has cherry picked from those logs to paint a misleading picture of the overall situation. I do not keep logs, because I treat typed conversation like real conversation and accept the caveats that come with such a thing, as well as because I optimistically believed I'd never need such a thing, so I cannot directly refute the cherry picking with logs of my own. I would, however, strongly advise anyone dealing with Adam to speak carefully, as the logs may be used against them if they ever have a falling out with Adam, and to keep logs themselves, as if Adam were to use those logs, he very well might use them misleadingly. I will maintain that Adam worked to turn me against Tony by repeatedly claiming that Tony's editing drove off users from Featured Sounds (back before I was an editor there). He also said the same thing about KleinZach, sometimes grouping the two, other times not doing so. I will maintain that Adam asked me to watch KleinZach for any slip ups so that Adam could ask for KleinZach to be topic banned from Featured Sounds, and that Adam asked me to ask other FS members to do the same. I refused to do either of those things and removed myself from Featured Sounds immediately afterwords. I am not going to even try to sort out the thing with Durova. I have recieved multiple stories from multiple people, several of which have nothing to do with this dispute, and many of which were positive stories. My opinion of her was unchanged by Adam, making it a moot point, and short of Durova reutrning, I doubt there ever will be a final answer to this, so I'm just going to drop it. 2. Whatever ArbCom decided behind closed doors, the facts from the account history are clear. Adam edited as Adam Cuerden from Feb 2006 to Feb 2008. That account was renamed User:Vanished user. He was then Shoemaker's Holiday from March 2008 to April 2010. Finally he came back as a new, unconnected Adam Cuerden in May 2009 and continued using that account until May 2011. (Yes those times are correct, the last two overlapped). From WP:VANISH "The Right to vanish (RtV) means the right of any user, upon leaving Wikipedia finally and forever, to request renaming of their account and deletion or blanking of pages in their userspace. It may also extend to the deletion, moving, or blanking of discussion related to the user's conduct." "The right to vanish is not a temporary leave or a method to avoid scrutiny or sanction, is not a "fresh start", does not guarantee anonymity, and may be refused if ever abused. Subsequent return should be notified to ArbCom. Return leads to the "vanishing" being fully reversed, any old account linked to any new account, and any outstanding sanctions or other matters being resumed. ArbCom may be consulted if this is a problem. Editors who invoke this right should expect that, if they return, their previous identity will be fully restored and may be linked to their new one if required for communal scrutiny, and any open sanctions and outstanding administrator or arbitration matters may be resumed." Whomever is to blame for it, probably both Adam and ArbCom, the old account was never connected to the new account as it needed to be. What is called an open secret by some people that were aware of the situation is not an open secret to people, like me, that were not around to deal Adam before he vanished. It is within the basis of those texts that I quoted above that I stipulate that Adam used multiple accounts in an abusive manner. He did not use multiple accounts to sock, to sway discussions, or the like. What he did was wholely trample on both the spirit and the letter of the vanished user policy. 3. I don't trust Adam anymore. I believe that his asking me to spy on KleinZach, among other things, shows that Adam values control and influence over Featured Sounds more than he values ethics and friendship. I believe he manipulated me towards to forward his own agenda. My previous statement, however, was out of line. The meaning behind what I said remains unchanged, however the delivery left much to be desired. Adam will, more than likely, be back eventually. I won't deal with him. This is on the record and people can make of it what they will. In the mean time, I hope this puts an end to this current nonsense. Sorry for posting in a collapsed section to do it. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem article

I just came across this article while checking out the topic of folklore: Lifter Puller Folklore. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with folklore. I'm fairly new here so I don't want get into the deletion thing myself. Maybe it just needs to be retitled or something. Thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I added project templates to Lifter Puller and Lifter Puller Folklore, and I agree that there are music lyrics, not folklore stories involved, but I am not interested in doing more. Perhaps someone who knows this music can help, with a name change or a merger proposal. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

So..

After being inactive from Wikipedia (except for edits to my mainspace and a couple articles every time I used Wikipedia to look something up) for two years while going to college, what have I missed? :) — Moe ε 22:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a little more bigger than before (over 3.5 million articles, now), a couple of new people banned, a couple unbanned, and a couple of new serial vandals. However, the level of useless drama seems to be about the same. –MuZemike 00:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"the level of useless drama seems to be about the same" - no it isn't! :P Rd232 ^talk 02:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I took one look at WP:AN and WP:AN/I and concluded the same to be honest :p — Moe ε 02:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

On the bright side, you can now move files (see policy). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it, even though you called me old! :p — Moe ε 16:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Great seal of the state of New Mexico.png

The file commons:File:Great seal of the state of New Mexico.png, which is used on a very large number of pages (links), has been deleted on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Great seal of the state of New Mexico.png. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.

What to do

• Check for the type of usage in articles and templates (usually infoboxes)
• If the deletion of the image will cause a problem, try to fix it:
  • Using a local redirect
  • By using a different image (i.e. in an infobox)
  • Contact someone at commons to delay deletion or work out a plan to overcome issues with the deletion

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please help, edit

Please help, edit this abstract (only 2-3 paragraphs). Aaabbbvvvqqq (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)