Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Lion again[edit]

Hey. Do you think that the lion article may be too large. I reduced it from over 172,000 to 168,008 but is it still bigger than tiger (158,840) and elephant (145,126). Wolf was recently reduced to 118,239 from over 170,000 to prepare for a possible FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Based on current consensus, yes. Also, the images are creating some really weird layout problems. --Laser brain (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The readable prose size is now 60kb...and 50kb is generally considered the upper limit of article size unless there is a good reason to exceed this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Well I slimmed it down to just under 160,000. I think that's okay for now. LittleJerry (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Need editing advice on my draft[edit]

Hello Laser brain (or anyone else??), I have a draft of an article that I would love some advice on, particularly in terms of notability. Would you please take a look? I've had no edits yet, so please assume good intention. Thanks! Albus89 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Albus89/sandbox/Griffin_Anthony

@Albus89: I'd say it's a edge case in terms of notability and it's possible the draft will be rejected. One of the criterion is being the subject of articles published in notable sources. The only thing I see that might meet that standard is the Nashville Noise article, although I'm unsure of the notability of that publication. The other articles you provided are blogs, which are not generally notable works. Another criterion that might make him notable is having composed the music for a notable work. You've listed "Catskill Park" but you'd have to show evidence that it's considered notable outside just being shown at a film festival. None of his albums have been released on a notable label either (I'm unsure why you've listed BMI as one of his record labels). I think you'll have more work to do to show that he's notable for inclusion here. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Laser brain , thanks so much for the advice! I appreciate your time. Albus89 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

IB[edit]

I'll move this here as the "restrictions", which I've suddenly realised, may include speaking about IB in general in particular discussions, but then confusingly, go on to say that I can speak about them in general in general discussions. Anyway, you ask why do people keep starting IB discussions? In short, because they can. ArbCom are complicit in this continued disruption as they have never addressed the problem. They allow for people on the pro-IB side of the argument to be as disruptive as they damned well like; people like the editor you've seen on Kubrick refuse to take no for an answer, are allowed to start discussion after discussion after discussion in the hope they get the answer they want, and put on a passive-aggressive, faux display of pleasantry. As far as ArbCom are concerned, it's far easier, as I've said with regards to Eric at Moors murders, to deal with the result rather than the cause which is why I find myself being limited to just one comment, while HAL and people like them continue to disrupt the project. Hope all things are good with you. Cassianto^Talk 06:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(can't help watching:) what do you, both or anybody else, think of this 2018 comment: Yay!? - I never had any connection to HAL333, and thought about how to explain that "live and let live" part to them. Laser brain, can you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I respect your calm view, as always... however, "live and let live" applies to passive situations. Folks who repeat an action (like making inquiries) until they get the result they want is a form of aggression. --Laser brain (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

While I agree in general, in this particular case there was an invitation just above the RfC by Bishonen to try again in a few months. Going by AGF which we ahould always apply I see HAL333 as a rather new editor who has zero background information about an old conflict, and who patiently waited even longer than a few months. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I'll reiterate my argument that it costs nothing for people to drive by and say, "How about now?" without offering any new arguments. They should not be encouraged to do so. On the other hand, it costs a lot of time and energy for those who have to monitor the page for the latest inquiry, reiterate the same arguments, and have the spectre of DS hanging over their heads. It's an unworkable and lazy system set up by Arbcom that punts responsibility and ignores the human factors involved. I don't blame people for lashing out under those circumstances. It's also very frustrating when they come in and say, "I don't understand why we can't have an infobox. No one has explained this to my satisfaction" when the reasons are there for anyone to read. --Laser brain (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

When I read "good point" I thought you'd agree a little more ;)

1. It wasn't a drive-by, it was a person who patiently waited, and I'd owe them respect for doing so.
2. I am not going to reiterate arguments. I don't even plan to participate, firstly because it's a waste of time (you are so right about that), secondly because some will only wait for that ;)
3. I don't blame people for lashing out etc, but only because I try to never blame people. It wouldn't hurt to use polite language when dealing with an editor who patiently waited.
4. It may be frustrating to hear "I don't understand why we can't have an infobox. No one has explained this to my satisfaction", but here I am, 7 years into that conflict, and it's simply true: no argument why we can't have an infobox has ever convinced me. I am just silent because it's a waste of time to argue, and because I respect that those who improved the article to FA don't like an infobox ("let live").

I turned to leaving articles by others alone, and instead to writing articles which I "control", and of course with an infobox ("live"). I have a peer review open, btw, you are invited. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Given his comment in this IB discussion, "I have consulted multiple guidelines and discussions, such as the one above", I wouldn't necessarily say he has "zero background information". - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, sorry for being too sloppy. I meant zero background when they "first" came, and meant about the old feuds from 2005 on which even I don't know about, coming in only in 2012. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

No-one needs to know about the "feuds from 2005" to know IBs are a sometimes controversial topic. He was involved in the Mozart discussion in December 2018 and then decided to rejoin it to comment about me in March 2019 – two months after I'd left a message asking someone not to personalise it. But sure, let's play the "zero background information" game and keep pushing the message that anyone who presses again and again for the inclusion of an IB is saintly and untouchable. – SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd also add that there is evidence we are being trolled by some off-site group given that whenever this comes up, we have random IPs, sleeper accounts, or "new editors" who magically find their way into the dispute. --Laser brain (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Definately. It's no surprise that as soon as the RfC was posted, there was an IP adding one in, and a second one today (who also left me this charming message too). I expect there will be more, as well as the sleeper-socks that magically appear whenever the IB question is raised. - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Facts[edit]

Every now and then, I look at the discussion, sooo tempted to go but determined (for my peace of mind) not to. Just facts: It has been said "This article was written about 4 years ago, it's not had a box since then.". The article was created in 2001, had an infobox from 2005, and looked like this in 2015. I have no time to check for how much longer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Peace of mind is a good thing. I should disengage. --Laser brain (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Bishonen said on my talk that I should rather comment in the RfC than on several users' talk pages, but what could I say? I generally support, that is clear, but seeing how desperately some - who added greatly to the article - cling to the version without, I won't have the heart ... - it's their peace of mind also. We have hundreds of articles where an infobox is requested, - if this one is without, the world will still move on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Today: Immortal Bach, - that's where I want to spend my time, "the last word meaning peace" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Also today, four years ago, is when "consensus" was established, "Infoboxes are optional and should be the choice of those who have made contributions to the article." Interesting to compare the names then and now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: As always, I respect your calm and reasoned approach. I understand the notion that directly engaging may be too difficult for various reasons and that you may wish to engage in sidebars with others. Honestly, it's become akin to people in two different political parties talking past each other. I don't know what the state of political discourse is in Germany, but it's bad in the UK and even worse in the US. Funny that someone brought up Brexit in that discussion. --Laser brain (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I went in a bit more detail on my talk about why I think the RfC is a farce. Just today, I read, addressed to an editor who seems new to the hotness of the topic and inserted an infobox AGF (reverted, of course): "It's you who wants to reduce a well-written article into a list of bulleted factoids." (User talk:Biografer#WP:DISINFOBOXes, if you don't believe it). Hopeless to argue with that, really. I tried for a while, but it's eating too much of my life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Viktor Fogarassy, for another focus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• FYI, and because I've already had my one comment over on Kubrick.

An apparently "new user", according to Gerda, who seemed very quick to welcome them after three very productive years, has just happened upon the Kubrick RfC by way of "coincidence". So not only has this RfC been undermined by HAL333's blatant canvassing, there's also now the possibility of socking taking place. And here are the rally cries on reddit. Cassianto^Talk 11:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident that the canvassing issue was neutralized, but a lot of what's happened since then is disheartening. The current environment heavily favors people who want to add infoboxes to articles, as they are given near-unlimited reign to drive-by additions and comments. Anyone who's opposed is tied to paying constant attention to these discussions, restating rationales, and having the spectre of sanctions hanging over their heads should they step out of line. I don't know why I expect anything more from ArbCom. --Laser brain (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

And rather ironically, I've not been part of it. I think this goes to prove that even with me not involved, infobox discussions still continue to be a problematic, hostile, troublesome, and uncivil timesink. Funny that. Maybe ArbCom should take their heads out of their backsides and concentrate on the real causes. Cassianto^Talk 14:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to correct that when I see a red talk link, I welcome them without checking any of their history. The assumption of good faith is not in rich supply, it seems. I focus on singing. - And like you said, Cassianto: even with me not involved (and deliberately not voting - wrong question anyway - and deliberately not sending thank-you clicks because even those have been scrutinized), the question "why not?" will not die, - timesink, yes. Just imagine for a moment the Kubrick infobox had been kept in 2015. Would we have had any discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know you could see other people's thank-you clicks. Wild. --Laser brain (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

"... a new low", the edit for which I thanked was this. Well hidden as outcommented text, but still bothered me, back then at least. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Just imagine for a moment if the Kubrick infobox had've had a consensus to add it the first place. We (are supposed to) work on WP:BRD around here and there is no time limit in which someone can revert. Consensus on either side of the argument is supposed to be non-negotiable. Cassianto^Talk 16:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

No, Cassianto. I looked at that 2015 "consensus", key argument "I respect that the choice of infobox is left to the major editor first and foremost." I respect that, to make you happy. Please don't ask more. Peace of mind has been mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Gerda. Where was the consensus in 2005? You don't get to add a box without a friggin consensus and then demand a consensus when it's deleted. It's a tried and tested argument that no one on your side of the argument can coherently answer. Cassianto^Talk 17:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

What in "Please don't ask more." was unclear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Then don't answer, simple. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Cassianto^Talk 17:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Thanks for your support in my recent unsuccessful RfA. Your words were much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

one of the better comments I've seen throughout this mess. — Ched (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

One oppose triumphs[edit]

Fowler&fowler was the only one opposing Mullum Malarum's FAC. Everyone else was in favour of it, including Mr rnddude who withdrew without giving a verdict. Fowler's actions were widely criticised, so how can his lone views be considered consensus? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed his comments and determined them to be valid and actionable. As issues continued to be found at this late stage, it's best to archive the nomination and address them. It's common for reviewers to locate issues that other reviewers overlooked, so try not to read too much into it. When I was an active reviewer, I would routinely find prose issues in articles that were enjoying broad support otherwise. I realize it is a disappointing result after the nomination had been open that long, and I do hope you'll re-nominate after working with F&F to address their concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: As an aside, I'm shocked by the tone of your remarks aimed at F&F. I understand you may be upset, but you can disagree with someone in a professional manner without saying things like "fuck you". We've long had a problem with reviewer shortages at FAC, and one of the reasons for that problem is reviewers being harangued and insulted for their feedback. It's disheartening. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I almost felt like crying upon learning of my failure for the fourth time despite all efforts. The tragedy is, some cynic like him will always oppose, and if I solve one of their comments, they will bring even more. I won't apologise for calling him that, because he first gave oppose, then withdrew after generously improving the article, then again gave oppose. He didn't stop there, he gave even more increasingly negative comments which were hard to address, let alone understand. I feared I would fail the FAC (AGAIN!), which is why I had a co-nominator who was much more social than me and succeeding at FACs, and believed he'd be able to address them. But he didn't move even an inch and never explained why. It felt like he backstabbed me. I may apologise for my language, but I won't forgive Fowler for what he did.., ever. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Being upset is normal. It's discouraging. It doesn't give you the right to take that frustration out on others. If you can't forgive a reviewer on a website for saying something critical about your work, you may be in the wrong line of business. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. FAC can be very frustrating but try not to take it personally. If it was a terrible article I wouldn't have supported it, at least take something from that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almost There (album)/archive3[edit]

I’m just a tad over a month in on my nom for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almost There (album)/archive3 and I was wondering if there was any input you could give about its chances at this point. It has four supports and no opposes and the sample issue resolved, so I’m wondering if I need to see out more feedback or if it’s fine to wait it out at this point. I’d rather not have to go through a fourth FAC so better to know sooner rather than later, right? If you can’t give an answer that’s fine, just figured I’d ask. Toa Nidhiki05 20:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: The nomination looks good currently and I'd say it reflects a good consensus for promotion. I always full read through each article before promotion and I was unable to get to this one during today's run-through. I'll try to take a look this weekend! --Laser brain (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Source reviews[edit]

Hi Laser brain, I hope you are well. I'm looking to get a source review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2019 Tour Championship/archive1 but been a little unsuccessful. Do you know who I might be able to sweet talk/badger for a review for this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

On a separate sources matter, I see that Almost There (album) has been promoted, apparently without a sources review; all I can see are some comments from Lingzhi about the referencing style, but no examination of format consistency, links working, quality/reliability, etc. Or am I missing something? I can't see sources having been properly checked in the earlier, archived noms, either. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: That's my oversight. I had in my mind that Ling had done a source review, but I see now that's a poor assumption on my part. I'll undertake a review in the next 24 hours since I missed it. --Laser brain (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

I had pinged you earlier to comment here, you got time? --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I'm not inclined to weigh in with opinions on any of the content. My job as an FAC coordinator is to weigh consensus for promotion, not dispute resolution. I continue to be troubled by the language you are using toward F&F. --Laser brain (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll respect your wish and not ask you further. I'm also trying very hard to reduce my animosity towards Fowler. Since both Ssven and Fowler pinged you, that's why I came to you in case you didn't get it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Clara Schumann[edit]

Clara Schumann just had her bicentenary of birth, and I did what I could the day before to improve. One thing I didn't like was that she was called Clara throughout, which is somewhat reasonable having to mention her more famous husband again and again, but I think is still disrespectful. I'd like you to go over it, sort of an unofficial peer rewiew, if I can interest you. (GAN is open, in case you - or someone watching - have more time.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I would love to. I should have some time today. It's difficult to find a solution to the problem you mention about naming! --Laser brain (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Just see what I did, and change if you think so. Of course she can be called Clara as a child prodigy, but later on, using "she" more often, saying "the couple" (suggestion by Jmar67 who copyedited), and saying chumann after her husband died seems more appropriate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Eric Corbett[edit]

If you wish to continue discussing Eric Corbett and his work, you can now freely do so here. Due to the quantity and quality of his work, there will be many times when he and his work needs to be re-evaluated, discussed. I intend this page to remain active as long as Eric’s own page is protected and/ or censored. I shall moderate the page, but other than archiving when necessary I will only remove comments which are abusive or insulting. Anything goes, Eric was an undeniably controversial figure who drew differing opinions, but so long as the language is acceptable and polite, I will let all comments stand. Giano (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The Featured Article Medal[edit]

Image	Description
	You've probably gotten some of these Featured Article Medals for your writing. This one is for your work as a coord, with my thanks for your devotion, competence and good sense. It's awardable to people who have helped with three or more FAs ... so I think you and Ian qualify (awarded jointly). - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Quite right too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I am your lord and saviour[edit]

Your block of I am your lord and saviour hit four apparently unrelated users (which I checked using the Editor Interaction Analyser. The specific users were KNHaw, Nuke87654, GeoffCapp, and Carrite. This is really surprising to me. I've never seen four users hit by a single autoblock before. --Yamla (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Add Loopy30 to the list affected by the autoblock. --Yamla (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yamla, and my account as well. Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Yamla: I've never seen this, either. I wonder if there is some IP sharing going on with certain VPN technology? I can only guess. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Fascinating. For a while, I was worried everyone was going to hit the autoblock due perhaps to a bug in the software somewhere. :) --Yamla (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Second nom?[edit]

Hi Andy, I hope all is well. I currently have this at FAC (it's been running for three weeks and has seven supports plus image and source reviews cleared). Would you mind if I added a second nom? No worries if you'd rather I wait for a bit longer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Sure, that would be fine. Hope all is well! --Laser brain (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Great stuff - thanks very much. Yeah, all is good here thanks! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Bloody good news![edit]

You have at least one supporter for this. - SchroCat (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Tentatively agreed, although I feel like you're gonna' trade one set of abuse (FAC) for another :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 03:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Congratulations. Cassianto^Talk 12:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Way to go[edit]

Dearest Laser, good luck to the most deserving Arb candidate. I look forward to seeing you do more of what you already do so well in so many ways; it is hard to imagine a better fit or more qualified person, and I suspect you will find the work most rewarding. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Laser. I was very glad to see your name on the list. Bishonen | talk 12:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC).

Seconded/thirded/whatever indeed.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you Enes bi (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

YGM from Ling, sorry I inadvertently caused a misunderstanding[edit]

• YGM from Ling, sorry I inadvertently caused a misunderstanding ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Have you had a chance to verify Paul Greenough's identity?  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

As you have edited since...[edit]

maybe you have missed it. I left a follow up question at your Q&A. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: I'm on the road for a couple days and hope to catch up on any unanswered questions tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Another follow-up question[edit]

Hi Andy. I have a follow-up question for you that is now up on your candidate question page for the 2019 ACE. It relates to your first edit at WP (Jan. 23, 2008) and whether you had other previous accounts at WP. Please do attend to it, it is important. Thank you. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• I additionally note that you failed to answer questions asked of you during your May 2009 RFA. Please do not make the mistake of thinking this is a viable strategy for an Arbcom candidacy. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Tim, I'm sure you didn't mean to sound a bit aggressive in this post, but it does look a bit like that to a (talk page stalker) like me. I know you to be fair-minded and not rude, so I presume you didn't see the 'tone' as you were typing. (BTW, my first edits do not look too much like a newcomers either: I edited intermittently for a couple of years as an IP, so I had some familiarity with certain areas.) We used to a page about not assuming prior knowledge of WP is evidence of a previous account, but I'm blowed if I can find it now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

(watching) @SchroCat: Presumably WP:DBQ, and specifically §E1. ——SN54129 18:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

And Tim, your edits to your guide keep pinging me to remind me how much you keeping wanting to "just say no" to me. I can assure you, from the bottom of my heart, once was enough, thanks. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You can turn off notifications, it's pretty simple, I think. I don't use watch lists myself, don't know for sure. best, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't want to turn notifications off Tim, but thanks for the advice. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Carrite: I've been on the road and will catch up on any unanswered questions tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Carrite: You'll no doubt notice soon that I withdrew my candidacy over concerns about my time commitment. While I find the wording of your questions to me unnecessarily abrasive, especially after the collegial email exchange we had, I'll answer for your edification. I don't have prior or alternate accounts. I edited as an IP for a while and after attending a Wikipedia workshop at a local university, attempted to get involved in content assessment and found my comments not to be taken seriously coming from an IP. So I decided to register for an account. As to your "Do you feel you were adequately vetted" question, is there a term for a question where no answer is going to satisfy the person who asked it? If there is, it's one of those questions so I'm not going to bother answering it. --Laser brain (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the question is really "Have you stopped beating your wife?" :) ——SN54129

FFIW, I edited as an ip for about 6 months before I used my account. By then, I had avidly read many meta discussion pages, and was aware of most of the players, including the then good, bad and ugly. That was back in 2006; when wiki was a new, shiny thing we were all trying to figure out. I don't appreciate Carrite's, smug, conceited approach here, which smacks of self defeating "well I'm so cleaver", and is why we cant have nice things. Have seen this before, in his ill thought out, ill informed, shoot the messenger, vendetta against Fram's RFA. Carrite; you seem motivated by unearned hubris. Ceoil (talk)

Thank you for dropping out, it was the correct decision. Sorry if the tone was excessively harsh, but the clock was ticking until voting began and there was no indication that you were going to venture back to answer any further questions. One must admit that the precedent of "winning by ignoring" was set with a 125-0 result in May 2009. All the best. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You are wrong, again, Carrite, in that assessment. You strike me as a "watch them fall", operator these days, though you have put no skin in the game. For prosperity and shame, man. The ultimate pundit on the bench, without the neck to stick out. "One must"; such unearned pomposity, give me a break. Ceoil (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• What Ceoil said; conspiracizing because someone didn't answer an optional question is particularly douchebaggy. FWIW, between 2006–08 the course of events LB describes wasn't in the least unusual; IP editing didn't have the stigma it has now, and it wasn't in the least unusual for someone to be active for quite some time before eventually creating an account because they wanted to edit a semiprotected page, because they felt they weren't being taken as seriously as logged-in editors, or because they were interested in enough pages to warrant creating a watchlist. (It was even more common for someone, even when they had an account, not always to bother logging in unless there was a specific reason to.) To be honest in recent years you're starting to give the impression that you've spent so long hanging around with the more paranoid elements off-wiki that you're beginning to assume that whenever anything happens on Wikipedia, it must be the result of a conspiracy. If you're accusing LB of being a Poetsock or similar (which I assume is what you're trying to insinuate), then say so. ‑ Iridescent 08:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Ending a message that was based on an unfounded conspiracy with “all the best” is just rich. Laser, really sorry to see Arbcom lose its best candidate. It was good of you to step up when there was a void; I can only come up with six candidates to support now, so there’s still a void. Wikipedia as usual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sandy, ending attack posts with “all the best” is the arsehole red flag that keeps on giving, and indicates that the poster believes their own bullshit, and is confident they are fooling all others. It works slight better with some Americans than Europeans, FFIW. Ceoil (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

When I'm trying to shine someone on, I sign "xoxo." All the best, Very truly yours, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You might might have to try harder Carrite to fool some people and perhaps someday yo'll argue on substance (rather than on the five quid betting book that seems to be your measure). Ceoil (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see[edit]

G'day Andy, sorry to see your withdrawal. FWIW, I reckon you would have made a good Arb, and we need content-focussed people on the committee. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Andy, I just noticed your withdrawal. You were my first pick; I was thrilled to see your name on the list. As long as I've known you (a decade or so), I've been impressed with your cool, level-headedness, your fairness, your clue, the way you and all the FAC coords I've ever known go about your business, quietly and without complaint, adding to value the project each and every day with zero drama. In my view you're the perfect candidate for the committee. I've not logged in for a few days or a week and haven't looked at the candidate questions so have no idea what happened here, but whatever caused your withdrawal, I'm sorry it happened. We need unity and we need strong candidates or there will be more problems down the road. Anyway, enough words, I just wanted to leave you a note. I never thank you enough, anyway, for all you do. So thanks for all your work and thanks for being willing to step up. I'm sure I'll be seeing you around. Victoria (tk) 01:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Also gutted to see this: you were my first choice too. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm really saddened to see this. As Victoria has said above, you were easily the best candidate up for nomination. It's a dark day for the future of this failing project and is another nail in its coffin. Cassianto^Talk 08:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• I just want to add that I'm sorry you won't have time to go ahead with your candidacy, and I thank you for having offered your services in the first place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You could find someone else to be FAC coord, if you really want to be an arb. But if your taste for the office evolved from yes to no, then that's an entirely different matter. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Victoriaearle and others, thanks for the kind words. It really was just some introspection about the time commitment. A friend emailed me and expressed in a more polite manner that answering the candidate questions in a timely fashion is important. I realized that I live in a world where unless a building is burning down, there's nothing that can't wait for me to go to a beer festival for two days. Carrite has nothing to do with it, and if I couldn't handle an inquiry like his on my talk page, I couldn't very well claim to have a suitable disposition for a arbitrator either. --Laser brain (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

No one who knows you, or has watched you for years through the daily grind at FAC, would think that some snarky questions or bad-faith assumptions could chase you off. Nonetheless, I felt that with you, NYB and Cas on board, the crazy could be kept at bay on Arbcom, and I wasn’t too worried about who else was elected. Now the picture looks less optimistic. So, sorry to see you withdraw, but never doubted your reasoning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You were one of my top picks as one of the most qualified to be on ArbCom. :( Ah well, I really can't blame you for backing off, especially since I'm far too chickenshit to ever sign up for that thankless job. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Awww, this really is a shame. I would've been more than happy to support your nomination, especially considering those outstanding mediation skills of yours that I've only just now discovered... Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It goes without saying that I would've loved to see Andy on Arbcom but I admire him for taking the decision to pull out if he has doubts about the time commitment -- it can't have been an easy call. Maybe next year, huh? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• +1 - Sorry to see you withdraw, You would've had my 100% support and had you became an Arb I'm sure you would've made a great one at that. –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

On having a second article at FAC[edit]

Dear Laser brain, I understand that it is normally impossible to present two articles at FAC concurrently, however Ian Rose indicated in a recent review [1] that this is possible if [the first article is] clearly getting close to promotion (i.e. it's had its source review, and several reviewers have indicated support for promotion) then you can ask a coord for leave to nominate another article. I believe this is the case currently with Userkaf which has already received 3 supports and a source review and is now in the Older Nominations section at FAC. Thus, I was wondering if it would be acceptable that I submit Sahure at FAC now ?Iry-Hor (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Iry-Hor: That is fine. Good luck! --Laser brain (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Jackson fans and extended confirmed status[edit]

Hi, Laser brain. Regarding this, I'm letting you know that a similar case, seen here and here, was tackled by JBW. As seen in that latter link, I've noted that there have been meatpuppetry issues when it comes to Jackson fans at the Jackson articles. Just as I was suspicious of Partytemple, I've been suspicious of Isaacsorry. And, oddly, the Partytemple account hasn't been editing lately. If that account starts editing soon after this post of mine, that's also something to consider. It will signal to me that this post was likely seen by Partytemple or other Jackson fans. As seen in here, one CheckUer (Berean Hunter) has previously looked into possible sockpuppetry regarding the Jackson fan editors. While no sockpuppetry has yet been identified, the meatpuppetry is obvious.

No need to ping me if you reply. I'll check back for replies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

FAC tasks...[edit]

So I watched you promote ... and tried to distill it down to User:Ealdgyth/FAC tasks. Does that look right? Should we be updating Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests or are we leaving that for the nominators? @Ian Rose and SandyGeorgia:. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:FAS is a monthly chore, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, running a manual check on the number of FAs bi-annually ... maybe add that to list so it is not forgotten ... I always did that at FA and FFA and always found errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

ah ha ! I found a link to my deleted FA work page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ucucha/FAC_coordination ... you can use your admin tools to see what was in there and maybe move Ucucha somewhere ... sorry typing from ipad on my way to a funeral, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Looks accurate! I update the image and source check requests if I promote promote or archive something that's still there. Some nominators proactively place things there, and sometimes Ian or I do it. --Laser brain (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Jauchzet, frohlocket![edit]

Thank you for letting me know. When I nominated, I hoped for TFA Christmas 2019, but that is scheduled. No real urgeny therefore, but people may like the topic more right now than in July in a potential second round, and to get the article as good as can be for Christmas is a also a goal. How about archiving after Christmas if nothing happens? I don't want to push reviewers, it's a busy season. I began a little article in memory of Brian, about a song ("let me go into your peace") we learned on Monday, and I made it a red link on Monday, and learned that he died the next day. "Jauchzet" (rejoice) is hard to do in the circumstances, but the text continues "verbannet die Klage" which can mean both "ban complaining" and "ban lamentation", - always a good idea, not only for Christmas and funeral. Perhaps I should expand that aspect. We'll sing the song on Sunday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing[edit]

Vision in 2020

missing Brian

Thank you for what you did for the Clara Schumann article! It's open for peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia![edit]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

		Season's Greetings
		May your Holidays and the Year that follows shine as much as this coin still does beneath the tarnish of bygone weather and long use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Jauchzet, frohlocket! - This is a command to rejoice, as a group. We have a working redirect, in which the exclamation mark transfers the "command" character even to someone not reading German. Francis Schonken insists to mention the redirect without the "!" in the hatnote. I miss Brian explaining with hopes, and will temporarily unwatch. Best wishes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers[edit]

Merry Christmas, Laser brain! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.Onel5969 TT me 23:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings![edit]

		Faithful friends who are dear to us
		... gather near to us once more. May your heart be light and your troubles out of sight, now and in the New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Przemysław Rzepkowski[edit]

Hi - dropping this on you because you already commented on the user's talk page. They seem incapable of understanding that their unsourced and peculiar additions are unsuitable. I suggest we should be heading for a short block here, whether for CIR or to drive home the fact that they have a talk page. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Your advice[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you have twice deleted a page about the music band Adamlar. Recently, I translated the Turkish version of this article, which you can view here. Do you still think more reliable sources are needed to indicate the subject's notability or are the ones that already in use sufficient enough? Keivan.f^Talk 06:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: The problem, which still exists now, is there is no assertion of how the band meets Wikipedia:Notability (music). There is really only one independent source cited in the article. There are thousands of bands out there who release music and our job is to assert and prove how they meet Wikipedia's more stringent notability criteria. I wouldn't say the article does that, in its current form. --Laser brain (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm back[edit]

As you can see, I'm not dead. But before I attempt another FAC for Sathi Leelavathi next month, I intend to resolve your comments. You said the article "needs significant work to be FA quality prose", but you gave comments relating to only one section: Music. How can I solve a problem without knowing what it is? If you won't tell me, never mind. All I can do is, submit it to the GOCE for the third time, and only hope for impressive results. I wonder if that mail I sent you about me being blocked had any effect after all. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I did get your email and the archiving in this case was about the article not being ready, not necessarily about the fact that you were blocked. I gave a few examples as is customary for the FAC process. --Laser brain (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Reporting Isaacsorry[edit]

You have warned this editor for making very extensive and unnecessary changes in articles, especially in the lead section. This editor is still doing the same thing as before. Here's the edits just recently [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. And it doesn't help that other editors have to clean up after them [8], [9], [10]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: A report will probably need to be filed at WP:AE for discretionary sanctions to be applied to him for disruptive editing in the Michael Jackson topic area. I don't know that I'll have time to do it today. Among the problematic edits mentioned should be his continuing to push his preferred genre changes at the main Jackson page despite failing to gain consensus for them on the Talk page. And any history of edit warring at the various sub-articles. He's been warned numerous times but continues to delete the warnings from this Talk page and continue anyway. Pinging Isaacsorry as a courtesy. --Laser brain (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have gone to the Michael Jackson talk page and have just seen that you did reply but this did not come up in my alerts so I was totally unaware of this. I changed the genres as an administrator (I believe it was isento) told me that if you get no reply, then it means that the subject matter is not really important and you can go ahead with the edits (paraphrasing). As your reply didn't come up in my alerts - meaning I assumed that no one replied to my regards about Jackson's genres - I changed the genres based on my understanding of what the administrator told me. Also, since when are you not allowed to blank warnings? I read them and am aware of them. TheAmazingPeanuts, you clearly not read the edit summary or thoroughly looked at my edits - if you did, you would have seen that most of those were either additional significant information, corrections, removal of insignificant information, or reverts from unsourced genres e.g. Bad. Isaacsorry (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacsorry: That's poor advice, whoever gave it to you, especially since you know your changes are disputed. It's your responsibility to monitor discussions that you start and not continue to edit war on the assumption that no one has an issue with your edits. At this point you have feedback from multiple editors that your editing is problematic, and you continue to shrug your shoulders and continue on. You are, of course, allowed to delete warnings from your Talk page. The problem is that you don't seem to understand them or adjust your editing habits accordingly. --Laser brain (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I was told about edit warring (which I got into with TheAmazingPeanuts on My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy) and have not got into an edit war since that warning/advice. Also, I find it both amusing and confusing TheAmazingPeanuts is making me look like some sort of vandaliser or offering no improved edits even though he kept the caption that I added in My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy about its x-rated cover. Just saying. Isaacsorry (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacsorry: I wouldn't have a problem with you if your edits wasn't so questionable. I been keeping an eye on your contributions for several days now and I haven't seen improvements on your editing. For example, in the Dangerous article another editor Akhiljaxxn was trying to get the article in good article status but your problematic editing was getting in the way. That's why Akhiljaxxn revert your edits in the first place, he said it right here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that was my mistake - I did not know that's why Akhiljaxxn reverted. I also didn't receive his comment in my alerts. Anyway, has it come across your mind that newer users may be more naive, you know? How long have you been on Wikipedia in comparison to me? Were there times where you received warnings or blocks? Isaacsorry (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacsorry: Admittedly I made some mistakes myself in the past, but the problem is when another editor has to tell you to stop making problematic edits in your talk page, it's best to fellow their device. Not by doing the same thing as before. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Beginning of the Quarry Men[edit]

Hello,

1) your two edits are contradictory because in one article (John Lennon) the Quarry Men were founded in 1957 and in the Quarrymen article in November 1956. Therefore edits have to be done.

2) Why do you claim that the source is not reliable, after all this source claims to be the official site of the Quarrymen ? The only source I know, giving a date (March 1957) is "The Art & Music of John Lennon" by John Robertson (a pseudonym, Peter Doggett apparently) in the first pages (don't have my book to hand to give the precise page).

Possibly this date comes from "The Beatles Live!: The Ultimate Reference Book" by Mark Lewisohn. Can't confirm it because I haven't bought this Lewisohn's book (have bought Lewisohn's "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions ..." 30 years ago).

3) In the previous version, the date was November 1956 but though sourced there was no indication of the date in that source.

In conclusion, there must coherence between both articles :

either late summer of 1956 (the Quarrymen site)

or November 1956 (though I don't find any source)

or March 1957 (Doggett or Lewisohn)

but certainly not November 1956 in one article and 1957 in the other one.

So I will reverse your edits to have coherent dates in both articles.

If you consider that Peter Doggett (or Lewisohn ?) is more reliable than the Quarrymen Website

then I see no problem to change late summer of 1956 into March 1957 but please keep identical dates in both articles. Thank you.--Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Carlo Colussi: There were two issues: One was the reliability of the source you cited and the other was the consistency of dates. I think the latter has been ironed out. The John Lennon article was adjusted for consistency with the Quarrymen article. The web source you cited is not reliable. The site may have some connection with Colin Hanton who appears to still be trying to make money with the Quarrymen name, but we should defer to published books and other reliable sources about Lennon in the case. --Laser brain (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the information about the possible ("may have") unreliability of the source. However this source is used in the Quarrymen article : I changed "November 1956" into "1956" because I didn't find "November" in that source. --Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

John Lennon and his Imagine[edit]

Hello and please read the main wiki article on Lennon`s Imagine song. Is there any need in further explanations? Let me know. Ono is not a co-writer of Imagine. Lennon, in fact, is not an `english`, but british (irish) musician. Greenhornfromwildwest

@Greenhornfromwildwest: Yes, you should explain your edits in an edit summary, and definitely not mark them as "minor" when you're making substantive content changes. You are also editing with what appears to be your personal opinion and against what the cited sources say. One has co-writer credit on "Imagine" and that was the subject of lots of press. Lennon was born in England and came from Liverpool so I don't know what you're talking about. I'm of Irish heritage but I was born in America so I call myself an American, not an Irishman. Please don't continue to edit war on those articles. --Laser brain (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

First, Lennon was an Irishman by birth and always talked about this in an interview. It was important to him and was reflected in his songs. Liverpool is a half Irish city in terms of population. If an Irishman is Irish since his father and mother are also Irish, and he was born in England, he does not become an Englishman from this, but he can be considered British (since part of Ireland is an integral part of Great Britain). Thus, Lennon is Irish or British of Irish descent (as, incidentally, the other two Beatles), but not English at all. Secondly, the song `Imagine` since its publication in 1971 has always been signed only by the name of Lennon, and Yoko Ono did not dispute authorship. Her current desire to rewrite history without even informing relatives, such as Julian, is not legitimate and is also not a basis for falsifying Wikipedia. Greenhornfromwildwest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenhornfromwildwest (talk • contribs) 15:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Isaacsorry[edit]

I see where you have run into Isaacsorry in the past. I do not know about reporting people but this guy disrupt edits everywhere. People complain on his talk page and he doesn't archive but he blanks all the negative input. He has listed articles he has edited but if you look at them each article has an edit battle. Also mysteriously other user names have the same complaints. I do not know about an administrators power to look behind edits but this guy needs looked into but I cannot help, Eschoryii (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

See Reporting Isaacsorry above.Eschoryii (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago[edit]

Awesome

Ten years!

... and today. birthday of Elke Heidenreich who wrote with her husband Alte Liebe after they separated, - my little contrib to what should be a good idea not only on Valentine's Day --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)