User talk:Lexein/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Your comments at the Water Cooler

Hey, just wanted to say that your words eloquently expressed the anger (and sense of exclusion) that many ordinary and anonymous Wikipedians are feeling at this betrayal by our (largely self-appointed) "leaders". It really seems like the project's mission is being re-written, and that the project itself is changing from a collaboration of amateurs to a professionalized alliance of non-profits. Partnerships are grand, but we should work with partners, not for them. Our mission is not to form deals with as many governments and non-profits as possible...nor to manufacture sinecures for officious busybodies who don't want us looking into their business. 173.224.153.161 (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Idiocracy

Hello, I wanted to say that I like what you said at Talk:Idiocracy. Well said! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 02:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

GQ article you requested per fair use

There is only one article by Jack Hitt in the Oct 1998 issue of GQ, and it is titled "The Legend of Dawn." I suspect that is the one you are looking for, so I have placed it here:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TSUgxWmwwLU83XzQ

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Holy smokes! Thanks! --Lexein (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Sofia Metro 2

Hi, I need your help on one more matter. I just noticed that a template, Template:Sofia Metro 2, is showing perfectly formatted on Google Chrome, but with some discrepancies on Mozilla Firefox and IE 8 (I don't know about IE 9 as I don't have it installed). The discrepancy consists in the fact that station names should appear on a single line of text, but instead appear on 2 or 3 lines of text, thus deforming (disrupting) the graphic line of the metro itself. If you have any experience with mapping, could you give me a hand? I tried the tw (text width) function, but it only works for names that are on the right-hand side of the line. For the names on the left-hand side it doesn't work or I don't know how to force it to work. Please, help. Verminclone (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hands off keyboards, please, for the end of another teletext service

I read this (no I didn't, I made it up):

A moment's pause, please, for the imminent passing of CEEFAX the "world's first" teletext-over-analog-TV service. Another lovely artifact of an empire not too proud to send news headlines, sports scores, and lottery results as low resolution text over even lower resolution TV. I was alive when it went on the air, and I'm still alive as it gets killed off - I've outlived yet another Beeb initiative. Aw, sadface. Whee, smileyface! I don't know how many Wikipedia articles I've been spurred to update, based on its blocky, sometimes blinky, breathless headlines scrolling by. Oh wait, now I remember: none.

- Not at all the real Charlie Brooker

--Lexein (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

friendly civility request

Please try to be more civil; injecting attacks without warrant unjustifiably poisons problem-solving. In Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#proposing to add right of publicity last month, you accused me of not providing information and then accused me of providing it. You said I had "implied 'a letter'"; I had not and still can't find what could have led to your projecting such a thing. You have apparently found nothing violative (disagreeable but not violative) in how I proceeded; it would help if you would acknowledge this in the same thread where you accused me of wrongdoing that didn't happen. In general, it's more productive to focus on the substantive issue at hand, in this case a legal one. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Bull. TL;DR=spam.

1. As I am continually forced to remind, WP:CIVIL means literally be civil, not pretend to be civil, or write in a tone as if ice cream wouldn't melt in your mouth.
2. Your comment above is not a "friendly" request at all, in spite of your faux-humble lowercasing of your demand. You ask me this many weeks after my involvement ended? These are the acts of a troll (IMHO) seeking to provoke a trip to WP:DR, which I always welcome with gusto.
3. You, bluntly, spammed a policy Talk page with a huge, pseudo-lawyerly treatise which appeared to be based on nothing but your opinion, with a not-presented email, presented as if it had the force of WMF behind it. I detest people attempting to heavy-hand discussions. If you don't understand that, or exactly what you did to do that, then I can't help you. Moving on: when I asked for some supporting links you spammed again with lots of, face it, not-very-helpful information, requiring wading through massive volumes of legalese which is not the role or function of Wikipedia editors.
4. When I asked you to be brief, you again refused by spamming further. Discussion is supposed to be possible. You did your level best to bury us with paperwork, just to be pointy. I am violently allergic to pointyness as blatant as that, and will, and did, choose to walk away.
5. IMHO The whole legal matter side of things should have been evaluated in toto by WMF counsel first. IMHO. Their lack of interest did not deter you, however. Your placid, blank refusal to even consider their polite decision not to become involved as informative is revealing. IMHO.
6. Every attempt I and other editors made to suggest or prefer an abbreviated notice of the requested notice was met with more long blather, and overblown concern.
7. Now you've dragged this to my Talk page? What part of "ew, I want nothing further to do with this, this is stupid," do you not understand?
8. My interest in the discussion ended when you persisted in demanding things not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to consider, because they are bluntly beyond scope.
9. I was right, and within my rights, to strenuously object to the manner in which you conducted the discussion, and right, and within my rights to cease. There, you have my response. WP:DR awaits.

When you learn to make concise, discussable points for actual discussion, rather than tl;dr browbeating, I will participate. On the subject of right of publicity, I may or may not choose to participate further, perhaps in the future. --Lexein (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That was civil and I am being civil. Somehow, you keep ascribing to me what I did not say or intend; perhaps you misunderstand (I'll assume you aren't misascribing deliberately).

There was nothing faux in my titling. I asked you about a month after in order that the matter itself be allowed to proceed with less toxicity. I spammed not at all, bluntly or otherwise, TLDR does not result only from spam (TLDR can be because a prospective reader is busy, in which case another prospective reader might read and act, as often happens), and I provided sources on request, so the content is not solely my opinion. Discussion remained possible; I cut off none of it but sought it. I did not try to bury anyone with anything, not with "paperwork" or anything else (I assume by "paperwork" you mean sources, which I think you wanted). Information on point is a necessity; if you wanted to provide more, such as to the contrary, you were and are free to. My point was not something else to the contrary; it was what I raised, and it's legitimate and well within scope.

Legal issues sometimes are inherently long. We are all responsible for legal compliance; the legal department of any institution cannot handle it alone. If a policy or its silence has legal implications, we can't expect never to have a discussion about a law and its relevance to policy, including in detail. I did not copy an email because I did not have a copyright release to do so, but I paraphrased it fairly and you can contact WMF's legal department if you have any doubt about it and you could have contacted them in the past. They did evaluate the subject. The WMF legal response was not preclusive of anything I posted.

I have no intention of going to DR with this but if you're saying you're planning to (your last comment suggests you might, with or without gusto) that's your decision, not mine. I went to your talk page because I didn't think it needed to involve more than the two of us; when you make charges, however, you may expect replies to them; otherwise, I do not pursue editors who want nothing more to do with a subject, and you can note that I did not pursue the legal matter by taking it to your talk page, just the incivility that, hopefully, will be reconsidered.

If you simply wish to leave this as a disagreement between us then, as matters stand now, I'm happy to do so. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC) (Corrected my misspelling: 16:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC))

DYK for Bagel head

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notification, but I only expanded and verified citations; I contributed not one word to the article prose. --Lexein (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I see what you did there, over at Rolling Stone 500

Rolling Stone lists get press, but not all get individual WP:N notability. I suggest moving instead to Rolling Stone lists of best albums, and including RS's 500, and the various International RS 100's. Basically, sticking to Rolling Stone lists. I mean the "500" article is rather freakishly short, by itself. Sticking with only Rolling Stone lists avoids the WP:COATRACK issues with non-Rolling Stone lists... --Lexein (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. I'm going to copy over your comment and respond on the article talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Article you requested per fair us

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9158964/FilmReview.PDF

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Latest one you asked for from Nature Physics: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9158964/That extra dimension _ Article _ Nature Physics.pdf Churn and change (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Howard Stern

I've written a proposal for WikiProject Howard Stern, seems you'd be a natural for it. Interested? Dkendr (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm more of a WP:Wikignome and I'm a bit distracted of late. But I'll do what I can. The trouble with going high visibility is that it brings out the haters, deletionists and WP:DICK drama that got the articles in this category raped, rather than improved, in the first place. --Lexein (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Y'know, never seen that meta tag before... sums up pretty much every policy in the place, doesn't it? Dkendr (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I like WP:TIGERS as well. if I had remembered, I would have typed Wheaton's Law. --Lexein (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Adam West book

Sorry, I forgot about that request. I should be able to scan it in the next few days. Best, GabrielF (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rockin'. I suppose if I want to mine the book, I should just buy it. But for that one citation, a scan would be awesome. If it's any trouble, don't bother. --Lexein (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Lexein, I've scanned the two pages of the book that deal with the initial test screenings of the show. The story West tells is a bit different than what you wanted to verify (the screening used dials rather than comment cards and they knew the results). The spirit of the story (that the results were incredibly bad) is the same. I flipped through the book and didn't see any other mentions of test screenings but it's possible that I missed something. I've uploaded the scans here: [1] let me know when you've downloaded successfully. Best, GabrielF (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much. The claim in the article is from 2007 (not by me), so I appreciate the assist setting the record straight. W00t. --Lexein (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"RS"?

(Moved from User talk:Lexein to Talk:Coosje van Bruggen. Doesn't belong on my talk page --Lexein (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

EditPad

I think it was you who suggested I write this: User:Anna Frodesiak/Red sandbox

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice! That should help editors (maybe even me) speed up work. I'll edit a bit. I think it goes under the umbrella WikiProject Edit Wikipedia Faster (WEWF), as a subarticle "Using Editpad & TinyTask to kick AWB's Ass" --Lexein (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

FFD closures

I copy the comments that I left at Spartaz' talk page, since I think it will give you a good sense of what I'm thinking.

"If I remember rightly, a common part of DRV is a note at the page where the discussion was held. Either no note was left, or one was left that I didn't notice — regardless of which one, I had no clue that any DRVs had been filed until a few minutes ago, when I found multiple messages on the subject. I only found out about these closures because I was going through CAT:CSD and found a file that had been reuploaded after deletion, and of course I'm not going to perform a G4 deletion on a page that never had consensus for deletion in the first place. I can't undo anything, because SchuminWeb has chosen to wheel war with me by re-deleting everything."

I'm at a restaurant in the middle of an all-day road trip, so I'll be unable to do anything for a while. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the first DRV I've started, so it's likely I've broken some part of it. Sorry for not thinking to leave a topnote on Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 November 17. Corrected. I don't think for a moment you were wheelwarring, and it was premature to declare that. "Warring" is deliberate, against existing process or discussion - I believe you were unaware of the new, ongoing discussion. --Lexein (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thatcher on Acid

I've withdrawn my nomination for deletion of Thatcher on Acid at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thatcher on Acid, and thanks for providing sourcing that qualified the topic's notability on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sweet! To be honest, if I'd found nothing, I would have let the nom stand. Feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeafChat - I'm at wits end. --Lexein (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Incidents involving ricin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Oregonian

Linda Ronstadt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to KQED

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy & the Mustangs

I've withdrawn my nomination for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy & the Mustangs. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sweet. Happy to help. Now I really want a one-click find my damn sources everywhere I usually look tool. --Lexein (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

IP Block Exemption request

I was advised here to try WP:IPBE. Here's my (empty) block log:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Lexein (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm requesting an IP block exemption, because I use OpenVPN's Private Tunnel service for increased privacy and access to Wikipedia through hostile routers. (Recently, I was blocked from editing while connected thru OpenVPN Private Tunnel, and logged in to WP, which seemed odd.). As an editor in good standing, who always edits while logged in, and has never been blocked for any reason, I also always leave edit summaries, even though in discussions my comments can seem ascerbic. --Lexein (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

IPBE granted. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lexein. My block of the range you are attempting to edit from is because a well known open proxy service called Hotspot Shield, operates on that web hosting range. While I definitely agree that you are in good standing, as per the policy, is there a particular reason that you need to edit through a proxy/VPN? (Feel free to email me or the functionaries team if you wish to keep the reason offwiki) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Responded to you by email. --Lexein (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also replied. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and replied. --Lexein (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)